RussiaGate

[TV and credit cards]

You do realize that these russians are all in Russia? Not being able to travel to US/Europe IS inconvenient for these people, but not the end of the world. As for Putin, he can indict people in US government with exactly same charges.

That's not really the point. The point is to publicly show that it happened and put an end to Trump's calling it a hoax, and to show what a weak ineffectual son of a whore he is. The nation's security is at stake and he's doing nothing but (get this) appeasing Vladimir Putin.

We'll see in the coming days if he is willing to put any of the sanctions in place. I suspect he'll be staying clear of the media otherwise. I can't imagine even this lowly slug coming out with a public statement about cooperation between our nations.
And if not, the pressure will then shift to the GOP to hold Trump's feet to the fire for implimenting those sanctions they overwhelmingly approved.

And what exactly this "it" is? Russians interfering in the elections does not mean collusion. So Trump is right at least about that.
Anyway, the point was that this indictment would scare Russian operatives. I merely pointed out that it would not.

The "it" is what was spelled out in the indictment, person by person. So Trump was not right about that. Mueller is hardly finished. I suspect up next will be those people known and and unknown mentioned on page 2 or 3 of the indictment. Sit back. The fat lady is just warming up.

 

[barbos]

And what exactly this "it" is? Russians interfering in the elections does not mean collusion. So Trump is right at least about that.
Anyway, the point was that this indictment would scare Russian operatives. I merely pointed out that it would not.

The "it" is what was spelled out in the indictment, person by person. So Trump was not right about that. Mueller is hardly finished. I suspect up next will be those people known and and unknown mentioned on page 2 or 3 of the indictment. Sit back. The fat lady is just warming up.

Again, interference != collusion. I am all for sending Trump out preferably to prison, but I don't see him mentally competent to collude.

 

[barbos]

CIA admits itnterferring in other countries elections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/...y-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

CIA admits itnterferring in other countries elections. The only difference is that CIA are the good guys whereas others are bad guys.

 

[rousseau]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/...y-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

CIA admits itnterferring in other countries elections. The only difference is that CIA are the good guys whereas others are bad guys.

Except that the U.S. is promoting democracy, and Russia is trying to weaken it.. so pretty much entirely different.

 

[rousseau]

Yes, that's what neocons think. Libyans, Syrians and ukrainians might disagree, though.

Or let me give another example. Hillary was a bad candidate, so how is not electing her is working out for you?

Trying to parse this point. Do you mean that democracy isn't ideal because it doesn't always produce ideal outcomes?

No, I don't mean that. I just have aversion to methods of imposing democracy US practice, and actual intent behind these attempts.
Maybe Libya and Syria are not good examples (for Russia) but Ukraine is. Convince me that faceless policy makers in US did not plan that all along? And convince me that their actual plan for Russia is not the same?

I'm not familiar with what happened in Ukraine and how that pertains to this convo? You'll have to be more explicit for me.

 

[barbos]

No, I don't mean that. I just have aversion to methods of imposing democracy US practice, and actual intent behind these attempts.
Maybe Libya and Syria are not good examples (for Russia) but Ukraine is. Convince me that faceless policy makers in US did not plan that all along? And convince me that their actual plan for Russia is not the same?

I'm not familiar with what happened in Ukraine and how that pertains to this convo? You'll have to be more explicit for me.

How convenient for you to be not familiar
It's a well (way better than RussiaGate) established fact that US intelligence and Obama government in general were extremely involved in Ukrainian coup in which they backed up people who by all accounts were worse than Yanukovich - worse and rabidly anti-russian. Convince me that it is an accidental feature and not a strategy on the part of US. Ukraine is not the only time this happened. US is fairly consistent in supporting anti-russian parties in Serbia and and other eastern European states.

 

[rousseau]

No, I don't mean that. I just have aversion to methods of imposing democracy US practice, and actual intent behind these attempts.
Maybe Libya and Syria are not good examples (for Russia) but Ukraine is. Convince me that faceless policy makers in US did not plan that all along? And convince me that their actual plan for Russia is not the same?

I'm not familiar with what happened in Ukraine and how that pertains to this convo? You'll have to be more explicit for me.

How convenient for you to be not familiar
It's a well (way better than RussiaGate) established fact that US intelligence and Obama government in general were extremely involved in Ukrainian coup in which they backed up people who by all accounts were worse than Yanukovich - worse and rabidly anti-russian. Convince me that it an accidental feature and not an intent on the part of US. Ukraine is not the only time this happened. US is fairly consistent in supporting anti-russian parties in Serbia and and other eastern European states.

I'm not trying to be perpetually hostile, just haven't had time to read in depth on American foreign policy.

I'm still not able to make the connection between my original post and the point you're trying to make. Essentially, I've noticed that the Russian people themselves are interested in removing Putin, and so I don't see much of a problem in anti-Putin policies elsewhere in the world. I'm genuinely interested in an answer from you, I'm just not seeing it yet.

Ok, maybe in some perspective Putin may be looking out for Russia's best interests, but who said becoming a part of the established world order wouldn't be better long-term for Russia? Why is Putin's anti-globalism the best way forward for Russia?

 

[barbos]

How convenient for you to be not familiar
It's a well (way better than RussiaGate) established fact that US intelligence and Obama government in general were extremely involved in Ukrainian coup in which they backed up people who by all accounts were worse than Yanukovich - worse and rabidly anti-russian. Convince me that it an accidental feature and not an intent on the part of US. Ukraine is not the only time this happened. US is fairly consistent in supporting anti-russian parties in Serbia and and other eastern European states.

I'm not trying to be perpetually hostile, just haven't had time to read in depth on American foreign policy.

I'm still not able to make the connection between my original post and the point you're trying to make. Essentially, I've noticed that the Russian people themselves are interested in removing Putin,

Well, you noticed it wrong. They (overwhelming majority) are not interested in that. So your point goes off the rails right there.

and so I don't see much of a problem in anti-Putin policies elsewhere in the world. I'm genuinely interested in an answer from you, I'm just not seeing it yet.

Ok, maybe in some perspective Putin may be looking out for Russia's best interests, but who said becoming a part of the established world order wouldn't be better long-term for Russia? Why is Putin's anti-globalism the best way forward for Russia?

You don't have to convince me, I don't like Putin. I just dislike alternative you are offering more. Putin is a russian Clinton - deeply flawed (in my opinion) with a ton of baggage president and now candidate. But US publicly backed a number of Trump-like assholes as alternative to him.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/...y-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

CIA admits itnterferring in other countries elections. The only difference is that CIA are the good guys whereas others are bad guys.

This is a classic case of Whataboutism. What about blah blah blah? Guess what? When the CIA interferes in elections of another. country by promoting one candidate over another in a way where such candidate colluded with CIA, then that country ought to hold that candidate responsible, too. So when the CIA covertly helped engineer a coup detat in Chile to install a military leader named Pinochet, Pinochet should have been held to account for collusion with CIA, not just the coup de tat. None of which is relevant to this thread.

 

[Opoponax]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/...y-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

CIA admits itnterferring in other countries elections. The only difference is that CIA are the good guys whereas others are bad guys.

This is a classic case of Whataboutism. What about blah blah blah? Guess what? When the CIA interferes in elections of another. country by promoting one candidate over another in a way where such candidate colluded with CIA, then that country ought to hold that candidate responsible, too. So when the CIA covertly helped engineer a coup detat in Chile to install a military leader named Pinochet, Pinochet should have been held to account for collusion with CIA, not just the coup de tat. None of which is relevant to this thread.

Of course it's irrelevant to this thread, but he is consistently able to distract with it.

 

[rousseau]

Well, you noticed it wrong. They (overwhelming majority) are not interested in that. So your point goes off the rails right there.

and so I don't see much of a problem in anti-Putin policies elsewhere in the world. I'm genuinely interested in an answer from you, I'm just not seeing it yet.

Ok, maybe in some perspective Putin may be looking out for Russia's best interests, but who said becoming a part of the established world order wouldn't be better long-term for Russia? Why is Putin's anti-globalism the best way forward for Russia?

You don't have to convince me, I don't like Putin. I just dislike alternative you are offering more. Putin is a russian Clinton - deeply flawed (in my opinion) with a ton of baggage president and now candidate. But US publicly backed a number of Trump-like assholes as alternative to him.

Fair enough, can you point me to some data to back this?

To me it looks like Putin's government does a pretty good job of squashing dissenting opinion, so I don't know that the data would be entirely clear. From my perspective it looks like the Russian people aren't actually free to oppose their government for fear of arrest or even death.

So that naturally leads me to the question of: if the Russian people so overwhelmingly support Putin, why is his government so dead-set on squashing dissent?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/...y-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

CIA admits itnterferring in other countries elections. The only difference is that CIA are the good guys whereas others are bad guys.

This is a classic case of Whataboutism. What about blah blah blah? Guess what? When the CIA interferes in elections of another. country by promoting one candidate over another in a way where such candidate colluded with CIA, then that country ought to hold that candidate responsible, too. So when the CIA covertly helped engineer a coup detat in Chile to install a military leader named Pinochet, Pinochet should have been held to account for collusion with CIA, not just the coup de tat. None of which is relevant to this thread.

Of course it's irrelevant to this thread, but he is consistently able to distract with it.

Indeed. We don't need to make what-about-ism analogies to other cases, especially controversial ones. We only need to address the facts of Russian interference in elections, Trump campaign's outreach to Russia, Russia's outreach to Trump campaign, Trump campaign indictments, U.S. election etc laws, etc. And of course all the myriad entanglement of middle men (such as Julian Assange, Guccifer 2.0, American accounts used by Russian trolls) and middle architecture (social media, letters by lawyers, off the book discussions) that is Trump's modus operandus to use in order to avoid accountability. It's really already complicated enough without discussing the merits or demerits of CIA for pages which will be inevitable if barbos gets his way.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/965286360268582912

Kremlin propagandist Konstantin Rykov said on Facebook, right after Trump's 2016 win, that his role in the plot to make Trump POTUS—which included Artem Klyushin, a member of Trump's entourage in Moscow in 2013—"started 7 November 2012."

Trump registered "MAGA" 12 days later.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/964976324749209601

(THREAD) Yulya Alferova—ex-wife of Russian oligarch Artem Klyushin and a member of Trump's entourage in Moscow in 2013—is yet another witness who confirms, albeit inadvertently, Trump lied about what happened at the Ritz Moscow. The list of such witnesses is now very, very long.

 

[barbos]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/...y-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

CIA admits itnterferring in other countries elections. The only difference is that CIA are the good guys whereas others are bad guys.

Except that the U.S. is promoting democracy, and Russia is trying to weaken it.. so pretty much entirely different.

Yes, classic case "Butwearegoodguys"
So, how is democracy promoting works in Saudi Arabia for you? Oh, you don't do that there? how so?

 

[rousseau]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/...y-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

CIA admits itnterferring in other countries elections. The only difference is that CIA are the good guys whereas others are bad guys.

Except that the U.S. is promoting democracy, and Russia is trying to weaken it.. so pretty much entirely different.

Yes, classic case "Butwearegoodguys"
So, how is democracy promoting works in Saudi Arabia for you? Oh, you don't do that there? how so?

I'm not claiming the U.S. is completely benevolent or in no point of it's history has it been run by dipshits, but equivocating the foreign policy of the U.S. and Russia is disingenuous at best, ignorant at worst. Still trying to figure out which is happening here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/965286360268582912

Kremlin propagandist Konstantin Rykov said on Facebook, right after Trump's 2016 win, that his role in the plot to make Trump POTUS—which included Artem Klyushin, a member of Trump's entourage in Moscow in 2013—"started 7 November 2012."

Trump registered "MAGA" 12 days later.

In the era of ‘fake news’ I did a little searching and found a 2015 article about Trump trademarking MAGA in November 2012.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/donald-trump-make-america-great-again-trademark/index.html

Did this nothing burger turn into a whopper?

 

[barbos]

Well, you noticed it wrong. They (overwhelming majority) are not interested in that. So your point goes off the rails right there.

and so I don't see much of a problem in anti-Putin policies elsewhere in the world. I'm genuinely interested in an answer from you, I'm just not seeing it yet.

Ok, maybe in some perspective Putin may be looking out for Russia's best interests, but who said becoming a part of the established world order wouldn't be better long-term for Russia? Why is Putin's anti-globalism the best way forward for Russia?

You don't have to convince me, I don't like Putin. I just dislike alternative you are offering more. Putin is a russian Clinton - deeply flawed (in my opinion) with a ton of baggage president and now candidate. But US publicly backed a number of Trump-like assholes as alternative to him.

Fair enough, can you point me to some data to back this?

Well, you can ask Obama, he seemed under impression that Putin did in fact have support.

To me it looks like Putin's government does a pretty good job of squashing dissenting opinion, so I don't know that the data would be entirely clear. From my perspective it looks like the Russian people aren't actually free to oppose their government for fear of arrest or even death.

Well, we have to thank US for that. Putin does seem a bit paranoid about that. But in his defense, he saw what happens when US decides to do revolt. Now it is assumed any opposition is paid by State Department, and it's often true.

So that naturally leads me to the question of: if the Russian people so overwhelmingly support Putin, why is his government so dead-set on squashing dissent?

Because people have memory. They remember when they had president whom US liked and how it was back then. There was plenty of dissenting left and right, not much eating.

 

[rousseau]

Fair enough, can you point me to some data to back this?

Well, you can ask Obama, he seemed under impression that Putin did in fact have support.

To me it looks like Putin's government does a pretty good job of squashing dissenting opinion, so I don't know that the data would be entirely clear. From my perspective it looks like the Russian people aren't actually free to oppose their government for fear of arrest or even death.

Well, we have to thank US for that. Putin does seem a bit paranoid about that. But in his defense, he saw what happens when US decides to do revolt. Now it is assumed any opposition is paid by State Department, and it's often true.

So that naturally leads me to the question of: if the Russian people so overwhelmingly support Putin, why is his government so dead-set on squashing dissent?

Because people have memory. They remember when they had president whom US liked and how it was back then. There was plenty of dissenting left and right, not much eating.

Which president are you referring to?

 

[barbos]

Yes, classic case "Butwearegoodguys"
So, how is democracy promoting works in Saudi Arabia for you? Oh, you don't do that there? how so?

I'm not claiming the U.S. is completely benevolent or in no point of it's history has it been run by dipshits, but equivocating the foreign policy of the U.S. and Russia is disingenuous at best, ignorant at worst. Still trying to figure out which is happening here.

I am not equivocating anything. But you are promoting this idea that if some country is less "good" than another then this another can use any means possible to bring the first one to the standards. Why not fucking nuke Russia? after all, they are worse than US?
Fact is, US has done much worse meddling in Russia and around than Russia (allegedly) did this time. And your "but we are good guys" simply are not working. You are losing any good will you ever had among russians. It's just stupid and short-sighted.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, you can ask Obama, he seemed under impression that Putin did in fact have support.

Well, we have to thank US for that. Putin does seem a bit paranoid about that. But in his defense, he saw what happens when US decides to do revolt. Now it is assumed any opposition is paid by State Department, and it's often true.

So that naturally leads me to the question of: if the Russian people so overwhelmingly support Putin, why is his government so dead-set on squashing dissent?

Because people have memory. They remember when they had president whom US liked and how it was back then. There was plenty of dissenting left and right, not much eating.

Which president are you referring to?

Eltsin.