deltaKshatriya

Trump and Russia (take 2)

Recommended Posts

@[member='Alpheus'], no doubt there are many who are Trump supporters/GOP who have that sentiment. But I would say it's not all of them, or even the majority for that matter. Much of that sentiment exists in the rust belt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.) but I'm not sure about the traditionally red states. It's like you said earlier, there's a 1000 legitimate reasons that Trump won, and we may never know for sure what gave him the election. I would concede that it's those voters who won him those key states, and therefore, the election.

 

However, how long will that support last? Afaik, Trump hasn't done squat for 'bringing back jobs' which imo can probably be another thread on whether such a thing is even possible, for a variety of reasons. Throw in the Russia angle, and the idea comes along that maybe the angst of these people was just being used by an opportunist and a foreign power, and there's all sorts of directions this can go.

Edited by deltaKshatriya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.recode.net/2017/4/3/15164358/trump-white-house-foreign-immigration-h1b-tech-hiring-crackdown

Trump's cracking down on H1B visas bigly already.

 

An exact quote from a developer friend I have in NC was (via text, no punctuation added for affect) "Fuck yes!!!! Does that mean our salaries are about to skyrocket back to 90's levels?"

 

Even mostly symbolic things like this will keep that support going along.

Edited by conquestorbugged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, people who voted or supported him were desperate and still are desperate. They're not going to be worried about future or clandestine threats while they're wondering how they're going to eat tomorrow.

Or if they're gonna have a job next month. Call Trump and his associates on his bullshit. But make sure you are actually solving a real problem that these people have. The problem being lack of jobs (well-paying or otherwise). It's what got him into the White House.

Those people are idiots. Trump's plan isn't going to work. He may as well try to put all those blockbuster employees back to work, or maybe restart the great American horse-shoeing industry. 

There is an opportunity here for jobs, but it's in completely the opposite direction. Instead of giving people shitty, dangerous jobs that will ruin the environment and fail in a few years anyway, he could be investing in hi-tech jobs in the renewable sector.

We need Elon Musk, but we've got Ned Ludd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.recode.net/2017/4/3/15164358/trump-white-house-foreign-immigration-h1b-tech-hiring-crackdown

Trump's cracking down on H1B visas bigly already.

 

An exact quote from a developer friend I have in NC was (via text, no punctuation added for affect) "Fuck yes!!!! Does that mean our salaries are about to skyrocket back to 90's levels?"

 

Even mostly symbolic things like this will keep that support going along.

 

So, just for clarity's sake, is this just something you're using as an example of what Trump's supporters like, or is this a sentiment that you actually agree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So another Trump advisor has been found contacting Russian agents. LINK. Just how many have to have a connection to Russia's government or their intelligence agencies before any real hearings are conducted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So another Trump advisor has been found contacting Russian agents. LINK. Just how many have to have a connection to Russia's government or their intelligence agencies before any real hearings are conducted?

 

It's a slow process for sure. It's become fairly clear that there are connections that are not benign/routine. Look at what's going on. There's a ton of smoke in the form of leaks and statements of US intelligence officials. Moreover, just look at Trump and Friend's behavior. Covering things up, firing people, recusals, etc. all seem to point to something going on. Even the spin is having a tough time keeping up at this point.

 

Thing is that most Republicans are still not onboard. They'd still much rather prefer to cover it up. What I wonder though is that if the best option is to cover up everything, what exactly is it that they are so afraid of?

 

 

But, people who voted or supported him were desperate and still are desperate. They're not going to be worried about future or clandestine threats while they're wondering how they're going to eat tomorrow.

Or if they're gonna have a job next month. Call Trump and his associates on his bullshit. But make sure you are actually solving a real problem that these people have. The problem being lack of jobs (well-paying or otherwise). It's what got him into the White House.

Those people are idiots. Trump's plan isn't going to work. He may as well try to put all those blockbuster employees back to work, or maybe restart the great American horse-shoeing industry. 

There is an opportunity here for jobs, but it's in completely the opposite direction. Instead of giving people shitty, dangerous jobs that will ruin the environment and fail in a few years anyway, he could be investing in hi-tech jobs in the renewable sector.

We need Elon Musk, but we've got Ned Ludd.

 

 

Trump's plan won't work. It hasn't worked so far. Protectionism, barring immigration, etc. have only worked to bring down countries and civilizations, not boost them up. Barring H1B won't do shit. Dragging companies back won't do shit either, especially if all they are gonna do is automate the plant to begin with. And as Trump himself has stated, in his book, unless you actually deliver on the goods, people will eventually catch on to the fact that they are being duped. 

However, the thing is that the people who are 'idiots' wouldn't be in the position of not having work if they could work in high tech fields. All they've ever known/can do are those shitty/dangerous jobs. Trump, Bannon (and his thinly veiled racist bandwagon, and maybe the Russians) are basically exploiting this as an opportunity to get into a position of power to carry out an agenda. Obviously Trump doesn't give a shit about any of these people at all. Point is that if they were 'smart' they wouldn't be in the position they are anyways. Not to say Trump voters are uniformly stupid (I think the term willfully ignorant applies), but if we are referring to factory workers, they certainly aren't capable of doing things like coding. 

There are legit solutions to this, but you've got a used car salesman (Trump) selling his brand of populism, throw in some racial resentment, and some pseudo-science, along with a base that's clearly more than willing to overlook some realities in exchange for the high given by this entire escapade, and voila! Trump is president! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.recode.net/2017/4/3/15164358/trump-white-house-foreign-immigration-h1b-tech-hiring-crackdown

Trump's cracking down on H1B visas bigly already.

 

An exact quote from a developer friend I have in NC was (via text, no punctuation added for affect) "Fuck yes!!!! Does that mean our salaries are about to skyrocket back to 90's levels?"

 

Even mostly symbolic things like this will keep that support going along.

 

So, just for clarity's sake, is this just something you're using as an example of what Trump's supporters like, or is this a sentiment that you actually agree with?

 

Personally I don't really care either way, as this change doesn't touch any real use case.

 

As someone who is responsible for all our hiring we've had 7~ H1B workers all very intelligent and working at a low-senior level.

 

I don't see any companies hiring Entry level H1B workers... At that point they're better off just outsourcing labor which also isn't covered.

 

In general I think H1B's are America's strongest asset (Even comparable to our export market), and it lets  us take in brilliant people from other countries like an intelligence sponge.

 

Curious to see where the new Russian allegations go. From the description it could be anything from talking about public lectures to negotiating deals with a Russian spy network.

 

Seems most of the investigations have lost steam now? Are the only ones still ongoing the Seychelles meeting and the new one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of the investigations have lost steam. They're all ongoing as part of a larger FBI Russia probe.

I'm fairly convinced someone is going to jail. I wonder who, how many, and how far up at this point really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the investigations have lost steam. They're all ongoing as part of a larger FBI Russia probe.

I'm fairly convinced someone is going to jail. I wonder who, how many, and how far up at this point really.

 

I honestly don't think it's possible to reach a conclusion like that. I think media coverage is pretty disconnected from anything that may or may not be going on in any investigation, and that's honestly probably the way it should be. Given what's been made public I have a fairly easy time imagining a wide range of scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What conclusion do you mean? Do you mean the ongoing investigation part of my belife that someone is going to jail?

I'm gonna guess that you mean the second part, and imo, with all the smoke and cover ups, something is bad enough that the best course of action is to do an obvious cover up. There are a ton of signs pointing to there is an illegal connection here. I admit tho that we don't really know how many were involved and how far reaching it is. Granted we don't know what the investigation is doing, but there's been plenty of leaks, so we know some details.

Btw, how'd the cows aren't evil name come about? Always curious each time I see you post. PM me if you feel it'd derail the thread. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may have been mentioned already as I haven't read all previous posts.

Syria seems like would break the love between Trump and Putin as they take opposite side in the war, which is getting worse by the day

Putin is a firm backer of Assad, while the White House sees no future role for Assad in Syria. How far would this conflict turn them against each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the US just dropped some cruise missiles on Assad. Here's the thing. Trumpoo faces a lot of domestic pressure. It'd be really tough to not do anything. The other thing is that Trump doesn't have to do pro Russia stuff all the time: even destabilizing the US with general idiocy (which we have seen in these past few months) is enough.

The other thing is that Trump doesn't want to look like a hypocrite after attacking Obama for not doing anything a couple of years ago. It's probably why he did them.

In any case, we don't know a ton. There's still plenty of scenarios of Russia and Trump that probably haven't been considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the US just dropped some cruise missiles on Assad. Here's the thing. Trumpoo faces a lot of domestic pressure. It'd be really tough to not do anything. The other thing is that Trump doesn't have to do pro Russia stuff all the time: even destabilizing the US with general idiocy (which we have seen in these past few months) is enough.

The other thing is that Trump doesn't want to look like a hypocrite after attacking Obama for not doing anything a couple of years ago. It's probably why he did them.

In any case, we don't know a ton. There's still plenty of scenarios of Russia and Trump that probably haven't been considered.

 

And lets not forget, until now its just a ton of cruise missiles dropped unto a single airport... more than the Obama administration has done (which, at that time, could have done a hell lot more without risking a direct confrontation with russian military forces in syria)... clearly more than any european country has done to date.

 

Still, its just some cruise missiles fired on a single airport. That will not kill off the Assad regime, nor will it drive russia out of syria, nor will it solve the problem with SOMEONE (most probably Assad and the IS, but could also be the russians or the rebels) using chemical weapons without regards for civilian casualities.

 

I would be amazed if the russians wouldn't use that as an excuse to boast more anti-western propaganda in TV, and maybe move more russian military back to syria. Yet I don't think its going to ignite a big war between ANYONE.

Somebody f***ed up and used no-no chemical weapons big times without any provisions to cover up the thing. The russian blame on Assads planes attacking a chemical weapon factory of the rebels just shows that even the russians are neither happy about the whole thing, nor see it as something you can jsut wipe under the rug.

They basically called Assads military stupid. Completly moronic to be precise. How stupid can you be to drop bombs on a facility with chemical weapons? Best case your intel sucks, and you are just dropping bombs gung-ho. Worst case you deliberately endangered civilian lives just to make sure those weapons couldn't be used against your troops. With trying to dispose of the chemical weapons with improper means (maybe Assads troops though those bombs would be enough to destroy the chemical weapons without endangering civil lives) in the middle.

That is a very serious claim given how friendly the russians have been with Assad and his gang in the past. Of course, calling them stupid is still better than admitting them actually having DROPPED the chemical weapons they SHOULDN'T posses anymore themselves. Its the lesser of two evils. Still, it shows that Assad has gone so far as to risk loosing russian support at least in parts.

 

Now, I am not sure firing cruise missiles were a wise choice. At this point, unless you destroy all the military airports, Assad can still drop more chemical weapons, and each aggression against him will strengthen the Bond between russia and Assad anew.

As cynical as it sounds, Assads latest action are actually more damaging to him than all the cruise missiles the US could fire before the russian will stop them (either using diplomatic means, or military ones, lets not hope the latter is necessary). Russia might be pretty aggressive with their foreign politics in the last few years, but Putin is far from Gung-ho, and sadly the opposite of stupid. Assad doing stupid things like overstepping red lines like that might lead to Putin at some point agreeing on a replacement (while maybe negotiating a nice retirement home for Assad in a first class russian dacha).

 

Anyway, while Obamas foreign politics maybe where sometimes to pacifistic, until now Trumps looks pretty random and not well thought out, like a lot of his internal actions till now. Lets hope he is making wise decisions in Syria, both for the life of the civilian population in the region, and for the global peace between the east and west in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more of a threat to Assad then something meant to dismantle his military. Trump's showing he's willing to kill people who drop chemical weapons (there's a chance even the pilot who did it personally has died, and he's surely lost some friends if not).

 

I'm willing to bet if chemical weapons are used again there will be cruise missiles fired off at Assad personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing new under the sun. Proxy wars are an old thing, and they're still a valid strategy because they are very good for the economy, this should not surprise anyone. The Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #34 wasn't made up, like most things in Star Trek it's not so much fiction, but a distorted parody of real 20th century history and racial clichés.

In every proxy war, the larger nations support one or the other side (sometimes both), always with most honorable justifications, and keep the conflict going for years, or decades. After all, someone has to buy the weapons you manufacture, and as long as war stays in some far-away country that most people have trouble finding on the map, it's all fine. Spain, China, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan... did I forget an important one?

So... the question of questions... will this turn Russia and USA against each other, will it escalate to a huge war? Of course not. They have an interest in keeping this conflict going, but they have no interest whatsoever in a conflict between the superpowers. They're not insane, you know. This is about business, not about total extermination in a global war. Sure, they'll do their propaganda show, but... whatever.

You need to have an enemy and an immediate threat after all, or the whole thing doesn't make sense. How do you govern a country when there are no present and immediate threats, and your citizens are not afraid of someone? How do you make them comply with the idea of your war (which is good for business)? How do you make them comply with their civil rights being violated every day? How do you convince a random young man to go to a far-away country and die in a trench with his guts hanging out of his belly, if there is no enemy that needs to be destroyed? Sure enough, hate and fear are most valuable properties, and you need to feed them regularly. So yeah... propaganda will go on, of course. But that's just... The Show.

You never asked yourself how some random arab guy who can barely write his name managed to capture an airplane and crash it... not just in the world trade center, but right into the Pentagon? Seriously? Right into the most secured building in the country, flying through the probably most paranoia controlled airspace in the world with F18s in the air at all times? Come on, you never wondered how that could have happened? Enemy, babe... you need an enemy. And you need fear.

It's not even certain who repeatedly used chemical weapons in Syria or bombed a chemical weapon factory or whatever. Assad? Maybe. Some IS guy? Maybe. But it might very well have been US military or Russian military, too. What do we know about it? Nothing. Only what we're being told. You cannot even be sure that the so-called IS isn't in reality the CIA (it's not like they hadn't done similar before, think e.g. Operation Ajax).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 Tomahawks on 59? What good aim..

If you believe Russian news media, sure. I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well seeing as Bannon got demoted/fired, and now we are seeing the first major action on Syria, it's certainly changed up the field quite a bit. Thing is that it makes an already complex Syrian situation that much more complicated. 

 

The Bannon thing is important because of the fact that a lot of the team up with Russia stuff is his line. He was always of the belief that teaming up with Russia to fight against Islam is a great idea.

 

But it's true that much of Trump's policies are almost completely random. There is no rhyme or reason to what he does for the most part. Just a few days ago, Trump didn't give two shits about Assad. Now suddenly that's reversed.

 

In any event, it seems that many Trumpians don't really like this latest move. 

 

Who knows? Maybe it's all another grand distraction. The major significance of the action is that it's a response. It's not a significant military action by any means.

 

Imo this move screams Mad Dog Mattis to me, not Trump. 

 

There's still tons of reports coming about the collusion though. It makes this that much more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What conclusion do you mean? Do you mean the ongoing investigation part of my belife that someone is going to jail?

I'm gonna guess that you mean the second part, and imo, with all the smoke and cover ups, something is bad enough that the best course of action is to do an obvious cover up. There are a ton of signs pointing to there is an illegal connection here. I admit tho that we don't really know how many were involved and how far reaching it is. Granted we don't know what the investigation is doing, but there's been plenty of leaks, so we know some details.

Btw, how'd the cows aren't evil name come about? Always curious each time I see you post. PM me if you feel it'd derail the thread. :)

 

On one hand I see what you mean by "obvious cover up," but I also think there's a lot of effort to contextualize these actions in a way that makes them seem as suspicious as possible. The fact that so many people are "involved" actually makes it seem a bit less plausible to me, because I can't imagine that all of these people who don't seem like they'd be particularly adept at espionage would all A) be able to keep it a relative secret with so many people looking for proof and B) not have voluntarily betrayed the truth (Flynn's request for immunity notwithstanding).

In my mind the "scandal" could turn out to be as little as some people simply forgot about their actually-innocuous interactions with Russian officials simply because they were innocuous and forgettable. Of course, it could also turn out that Trump himself knowingly made a deal with the Russian government to illegally interfere with the election. I think it's almost certain that, even in this worst case (worst for the integrity of the presidency, I mean -- I have no interest in discussing whether it's a good thing to want Trump to have committed serious crimes), the goal wasn't to falsify the vote itself, but I don't think that matters per se. if the Russian "influence campaign" operated through illegal means (e.g. hacking) and Trump oversaw it (or offered something to the Russians to knowingly encourage it), then it'd still be a worse-than-Watergate scandal, simply because it ticks all of the same boxes as Watergate (crimes were committed, the President was directly involved in the crime and cover-up, and the President used his own authority to facilitate both things) plus it involves a foreign government.

Again, I have no idea what the outcome is, but if I absolutely had to speculate, I'd say that the truth probably falls somewhere between the two scenarios above. For instance, maybe members of the administration had dealings with Russians that would be seen as "bad" if exposed (e.g. making deals with the Russion government largely for personal financial gain, or doing/saying things that would appear to encourage the Russian government to support Trump via more-legal means such as propaganda), hence the "cover-up."

Also, my name doesn't mean anything in particular, although I do like cows? I've been using the name since I was 11, I think, about a year or so before I first joined this site. I stuck with it even when the popular thing to do here was using real names, and I still like it, so I don't see any reason to change it now. I guess I like to be more-or-less anonymous, even though it's not impossible to figure out my personal info. I've mostly tried to avoid having a personal online presence in general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this stage, I don't give a fuck about Russia. Trump could be giving Putin your launch codes for all I care.

Meanwhile, he's busy ensuring that we won't have a planet to live on in the next 40 years.


Obviously this "Russia collusion" thing is for consumption by US liberals only, who at this point are entirely hopeless and lost. Sanders tried to save them from themselves and infuse some new blood, "New Deal" style, but they were too busy fawning over the Clintons. Many of them even liked what Trump did in Syria. He looked "presidential". And why not? What, Obama or Clinton wouldn't have done what he did? Clinton already said she would. Of course she would.

Anyway, most of the rest of the world doesn't give a crap whether the US elections were tampered by Putin, whether Slay Queen Hillary was more "qualified" than Trump(qualified to do what? Run a global hegemony that benefits USarians? Why the hell would we care about that?), whether US gets destabilized, or any of that.

Tbh, and don't take this the wrong way guys, but most of us, especially from poorer countries, just wish US would just...go away. You're not the benevolent empire you seem to think you are; "woke" liberals, "charming" Obamas, "feminist" Slay Queens, and Bernie-style "socialists" included. Time and time again, you make things 10x worse wherever and whenever you decide to "intervene". We don't want you to be "tolerant" enough to take in refugees from countries you go to war with. We kinda want you to stop bombing them in the first place.

The only thing I care about the US is the amount of CO2 and explosives it unleashes into the rest of the planet; other than that, you might as well all go sink into the Pacific pardon my french. :P

And this thing with liberals and Russia is getting *really* ridiculous, just admit you lost any connection you had with the masses and try to win them back. Do some freaking self-criticism. And don't put Lena Dunhamn in charge of your PR in the next elections. Edited by mikeman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What conclusion do you mean? Do you mean the ongoing investigation part of my belife that someone is going to jail?

I'm gonna guess that you mean the second part, and imo, with all the smoke and cover ups, something is bad enough that the best course of action is to do an obvious cover up. There are a ton of signs pointing to there is an illegal connection here. I admit tho that we don't really know how many were involved and how far reaching it is. Granted we don't know what the investigation is doing, but there's been plenty of leaks, so we know some details.

Btw, how'd the cows aren't evil name come about? Always curious each time I see you post. PM me if you feel it'd derail the thread. :)

 

On one hand I see what you mean by "obvious cover up," but I also think there's a lot of effort to contextualize these actions in a way that makes them seem as suspicious as possible. The fact that so many people are "involved" actually makes it seem a bit less plausible to me, because I can't imagine that all of these people who don't seem like they'd be particularly adept at espionage would all A) be able to keep it a relative secret with so many people looking for proof and B) not have voluntarily betrayed the truth (Flynn's request for immunity notwithstanding).

In my mind the "scandal" could turn out to be as little as some people simply forgot about their actually-innocuous interactions with Russian officials simply because they were innocuous and forgettable. Of course, it could also turn out that Trump himself knowingly made a deal with the Russian government to illegally interfere with the election. I think it's almost certain that, even in this worst case (worst for the integrity of the presidency, I mean -- I have no interest in discussing whether it's a good thing to want Trump to have committed serious crimes), the goal wasn't to falsify the vote itself, but I don't think that matters per se. if the Russian "influence campaign" operated through illegal means (e.g. hacking) and Trump oversaw it (or offered something to the Russians to knowingly encourage it), then it'd still be a worse-than-Watergate scandal, simply because it ticks all of the same boxes as Watergate (crimes were committed, the President was directly involved in the crime and cover-up, and the President used his own authority to facilitate both things) plus it involves a foreign government.

Again, I have no idea what the outcome is, but if I absolutely had to speculate, I'd say that the truth probably falls somewhere between the two scenarios above. For instance, maybe members of the administration had dealings with Russians that would be seen as "bad" if exposed (e.g. making deals with the Russion government largely for personal financial gain, or doing/saying things that would appear to encourage the Russian government to support Trump via more-legal means such as propaganda), hence the "cover-up."

Also, my name doesn't mean anything in particular, although I do like cows? I've been using the name since I was 11, I think, about a year or so before I first joined this site. I stuck with it even when the popular thing to do here was using real names, and I still like it, so I don't see any reason to change it now. I guess I like to be more-or-less anonymous, even though it's not impossible to figure out my personal info. I've mostly tried to avoid having a personal online presence in general. 

 

 

I see what you mean by the context potentially. It's just that even if we look at contexts, there's so many of them stringed together at this point that there does seem to be something going on. Then people are recusing themselves, resigning, stepping down, left and right. There's finger pointing towards leakers, etc., literally anything except this issue. Plus the FBI is investigating the matter as well. There are at least several people who are known to be fairly close to the Russians (such as Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, etc.). Then there's the fact that Trump himself has been extremely pro Russia from the start of his campaign. Like I said, I'm not saying that this is a giant conspiracy starting with Trump himself (although that's possible), I just believe that there is something and it is incriminating enough that the administration is bending over backwards to do what in my eyes, context or not, does look like a cover up. Let me put it this way: if there truly is nothing, then what's there to be afraid of? Why all the dancing around?

 

 

 

At this stage, I don't give a fuck about Russia. Trump could be giving Putin your launch codes for all I care.

Meanwhile, he's busy ensuring that we won't have a planet to live on in the next 40 years.


Obviously this "Russia collusion" thing is for consumption by US liberals only, who at this point are entirely hopeless and lost. Sanders tried to save them from themselves and infuse some new blood, "New Deal" style, but they were too busy fawning over the Clintons. Many of them even liked what Trump did in Syria. He looked "presidential". And why not? What, Obama or Clinton wouldn't have done what he did? Clinton already said she would. Of course she would.

Anyway, most of the rest of the world doesn't give a crap whether the US elections were tampered by Putin, whether Slay Queen Hillary was more "qualified" than Trump(qualified to do what? Run a global hegemony that benefits USarians? Why the hell would we care about that?), whether US gets destabilized, or any of that.

Tbh, and don't take this the wrong way guys, but most of us, especially from poorer countries, just wish US would just...go away. You're not the benevolent empire you seem to think you are; "woke" liberals, "charming" Obamas, "feminist" Slay Queens, and Bernie-style "socialists" included. Time and time again, you make things 10x worse wherever and whenever you decide to "intervene". We don't want you to be "tolerant" enough to take in refugees from countries you go to war with. We kinda want you to stop bombing them in the first place.

The only thing I care about the US is the amount of CO2 and explosives it unleashes into the rest of the planet; other than that, you might as well all go sink into the Pacific pardon my french. :P

And this thing with liberals and Russia is getting *really* ridiculous, just admit you lost any connection you had with the masses and try to win them back. Do some freaking self-criticism. And don't put Lena Dunhamn in charge of your PR in the next elections.

 

 

For the collusion thing, see my above point. All I have to say is that it should be investigated. For consumption by US liberals only? Why make such a circus of it? Why destabilize the US, rile up anger, and, by extension, destabilize the world? Let's not forget that US authorities are investigating this. The US may not be a benevolent empire (and I will never claim so), but certainly what happens here affects more than just Americans. Again, the world doesn't need to care, and I'm not saying it should, just saying that calling this a conspiracy to make a conspiracy seems a bit far fetched. 

Hillary was a fairly useless candidate in an election that didn't really have any particularly great candidates period. Sanders was ok at best only because of how genuine he seemed. Beyond that, I'm not super sure how great he would've been either.

Lost connection with the masses? Hillary did win the popular vote. She lost because of her inability to get votes from folks in the Rust Belt, a part of the country that traditionally votes Democrat. There's plenty of reasons for that, some ranging from Hillary being a bad candidate, others claiming that the third party vote took it, and even more claiming that it was fake news and propaganda campaigns that did it. I think it's some combination of these reasons. But I digress. Point is, that's hardly 'masses'. I could care less to defend Hillary: I sincerely hope this is the last we ever see of her and that Elizabeth Warren becomes the candidate in 2020, or someone similar. That being said, I don't think it's remotely fair to claim that the Democrats lost connection with 'masses', especially given how close the vote was in the Rust Belt. 

The impact of Russia's interference (which is a real thing) cannot be measured. We simply don't know how much of a difference it made in the elections. I don't think that anyone here can claim to know the difference it made either. But if people are colluding with a foreign power to beat the opposing party and then try to push that power's agenda to the detriment of the citizens, those citizens will care, and that goes for the US and any country where elections have been tampered with by any foreign power. Granted, votes were not tampered with. But if Trump and company are going to be Putin's stooge, then yes, it does damn well matter to Americans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just keep in mind, when I say "masses", I don't mean "a bunch of mindless sheeple". Just the average working person.

As an outsider, I was still reading and watching a lot of US liberal "pundits" and I was always left with the question : "who the hell are they addressing? Who is this message for?"

Like really, most of them were writing in a way that would only convince only those that were already convinced anyway.
What's the point in that? Are you trying to convince people to come to your side, by providing an incentive for them to do so, by connecting with them, by mobilizing them,
or are you patting yourself in the back for the amazing achievement of watching John Oliver and voting Democrat(big freaking whoop),
and claiming anyone that would vote for Trump or a 3rd party would be the most horrible person ever? After the elections, I was reading liberal "thinkpieces" like this gem:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/12/1610198/-Be-happy-for-coal-miners-losing-their-health-insurance-They-re-getting-exactly-what-they-voted-for

...Seriously?

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

(Note : This is not a guy defending Trump, for those that would be confused. This is a guy that lost his job because he advocated actual action against Trump instead of just smug jokes).
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-rensin


Also keep in mind, that maybe you didn't lost to Trump, or to "The Russians", but you lost due to a lot of people not even bothering
to go vote, because they didn't see any difference between Clinton and Trump. Obama managed to mobilize people
with his message of "Hope" and "Yes we can" and won 2 terms. Clinton's message OTOH was terribly weak. The turnout in Obama's first election
was 62% and he won 53% of that. The turnout of 2016 was 55% and Clinton won 48%. Has there been any self-criticism from
the side of the Democrats about that, or is it all about Russians?

I understand of course that as an American you care whether a foreign power interferes in your elections,
but you should probably understand that, yes, the rest of the world is affected a lot by what happens in the US,
but really we don't care much about your internal squabbles.

Especially since USA itself historically interferes with the affairs of other sovereign nations all the time.

Anyway, let's relax with a little song :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

(also, wth is it with the formatting of the post, I just can't get it right) :P Edited by mikeman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, Samoth... 9/11 conspiracies? You've really gone off the deep end...

Ah, it is always easy to laugh at someone else, but I beg you to remember: Almost exactly to the day two months ago, you and everybody else was laughing at Trump who had said "Look what happened in Sweden! Sweden!".

As we all know, nothing happened in Sweden. What an idiot. Except... almost exactly to the day two months later, something did happen. Funny how Trump knew it two months ahead of time. Looks like he is a medium.

Maybe, just maybe, he wasn't hallucinating, but he knew about this incident because the CIA are staging these. Only just, he accidentially picked up the wrong page in his calendar, and got the date wrong by two months. Thus, he revealed then-secret information about something that was going to happen, thinking everybody knew already anyway because it had happened.

Unlikely? Maybe. Impossible? Not with what US agencies have done in the past. I'm not saying this is exactly what happened. But I'm saying it is too easy to do away with the possibility just because the idea seems nuts at casual inspection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never asked yourself how some random arab guy who can barely write his name managed to capture an airplane and crash it... not just in the world trade center, but right into the Pentagon? Seriously? Right into the most secured building in the country, flying through the probably most paranoia controlled airspace in the world with F18s in the air at all times? Come on, you never wondered how that could have happened?


The guy was a certified commercial pilot, having got his FAA license in US. He probably was no Maverick(or Goose for that matter),
but I'm sure he could write down his own name and manage to crush a plane. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now