barbos
Contributor
Russia is not really interested in lifting sanctions. Also, it's not fair trade by any measure.
-
Features
Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media
- Thread starter Will Wiley
- Start date
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Maybe Russia just has to play ball. The impetus could be coming from the hidden buyers of 19.5% of Rosneft.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-rosneft-privatisation-insight-idUSKBN1582OH
Sanctions cost Exxon a $500M deal. And Tillerson is SecState.
All just a coincidence, I'm sure.
braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
barbos,
Why these weak sauce arguments? Seriously, you're better than this.
I'm aware of RT and their role in Russian media. Since you seem to have amazing "other side arguments" that drastically change the picture here as many see it, please produce them. I would love to evaluate this evidence for myself. I would welcome a change of mind on this subject.
I have not seen this on Colbert, and I did not use it as criteria to make my assessment of this situation. I concede there is false information about this subject, but if you wish to convince me or anyone else, you'll have to address the arguments they themselves have made and show why they're in error rather than something that irked you on a comedy television show.
This isn't really perplexing. It's a two party system. He's a reality TV star running for office in front of a gullible, largely uneducated and easily distracted populace. He always had a shot, even if others didn't give him much chance for success. (Myself included)
Ya know, telling someone they suffer from falling for propaganda isn't making you persuasive. I suspect it's a charge you level at anyone that disagrees with you so you can easily dismiss them. None of the opinion I hold comes from the Clinton Campaign. I am not a Clinton fan. While they were in a front row seat to what was happening, and could make suppositions, I don't think the Clinton campaign has the talent, skills or ability to level the kinds of accusations we have seen leveled at the Trump campaign. They may have gotten the ball rolling, but without evidence to back up the accusations, all we would have is just that- accusations. Much like Trump's charge of the Obama administration wiretapping him. It was an empty accusation and so it went nowhere.
In a two party system if you're against one you are for the other, it's a simple as that. If you think that Russia performed the large scale cyber manipulation that it did because Hillary and Obama were mean and talked trash, I urge you to quit being silly. Again YOU are making an assumption here: that the goal was to help Trump win. While it was an advantageous outcome that he did win, that didn't have to be the goal. I suspect you understand this. The goal could have been destabilization of a democracy that is a major competitor on the world stage, inducing doubt in the US's leadership to lead the opposition against Russia, and taking the US down a peg or two.
State actors do not waste time, resources and take risks without some kind of goal in mind. At least, not successful ones.
Again, if you wish to have a substantive discussion I suggest you address arguments your interlocutor is actually verbalizing. I clearly stated that the Trump administration did not have to actively collude with Russia in order to benefit from it's actions. I suspect that they did, but I am not sure, others feel the same, thus the investigation that is taking place.
Perhaps you could. But we're discussing Russia and Trump right now and "You too" doesn't rescue Russia from having done this.
Perhaps you could. But we're discussing Russia and Trump right now and "You too" doesn't rescue Russia from having done this.
In regards to the Clinton campaign making up this entire thing because the need to run in the future...what? Again, this reads like a bad novel with a truck sized plot hole. Have you paid any attention to the Democrats since this loss? Right now they're having discussions about needing new blood to run for office, having lost touch with the middle class, improving their local and state elections game - even talking about how maybe they're too harsh and need to be "nicer" to people that voted for Trump. I've seen nothing about people complaining that the Democratic party is fine and that it was all due to those dastardly, clever Russians. How people could buy this as a motivation for the Democrats, much less how they themselves could pull off making it look like Russia did this while they themselves did this...now we truly are in conspiracy theory territory. Which I have discovered, seems to be a common way of thinking among those that deny Russian involvement in our election.
It's NOT very plausible though. Sure, I'll buy that Hillary doesn't like Putin. I don't like Putin. If that's enough to suspect involvement in this grand scheme of yours, well, there's an awful lot of people that dislike Putin. Trust me, that's no hypothesis. It's more like a wild ass accusation based on zero evidence.
Why these weak sauce arguments? Seriously, you're better than this.
I'm aware of RT and their role in Russian media. Since you seem to have amazing "other side arguments" that drastically change the picture here as many see it, please produce them. I would love to evaluate this evidence for myself. I would welcome a change of mind on this subject.
I have not seen this on Colbert, and I did not use it as criteria to make my assessment of this situation. I concede there is false information about this subject, but if you wish to convince me or anyone else, you'll have to address the arguments they themselves have made and show why they're in error rather than something that irked you on a comedy television show.
This isn't really perplexing. It's a two party system. He's a reality TV star running for office in front of a gullible, largely uneducated and easily distracted populace. He always had a shot, even if others didn't give him much chance for success. (Myself included)
Ya know, telling someone they suffer from falling for propaganda isn't making you persuasive. I suspect it's a charge you level at anyone that disagrees with you so you can easily dismiss them. None of the opinion I hold comes from the Clinton Campaign. I am not a Clinton fan. While they were in a front row seat to what was happening, and could make suppositions, I don't think the Clinton campaign has the talent, skills or ability to level the kinds of accusations we have seen leveled at the Trump campaign. They may have gotten the ball rolling, but without evidence to back up the accusations, all we would have is just that- accusations. Much like Trump's charge of the Obama administration wiretapping him. It was an empty accusation and so it went nowhere.
In a two party system if you're against one you are for the other, it's a simple as that. If you think that Russia performed the large scale cyber manipulation that it did because Hillary and Obama were mean and talked trash, I urge you to quit being silly. Again YOU are making an assumption here: that the goal was to help Trump win. While it was an advantageous outcome that he did win, that didn't have to be the goal. I suspect you understand this. The goal could have been destabilization of a democracy that is a major competitor on the world stage, inducing doubt in the US's leadership to lead the opposition against Russia, and taking the US down a peg or two.
State actors do not waste time, resources and take risks without some kind of goal in mind. At least, not successful ones.
Again, if you wish to have a substantive discussion I suggest you address arguments your interlocutor is actually verbalizing. I clearly stated that the Trump administration did not have to actively collude with Russia in order to benefit from it's actions. I suspect that they did, but I am not sure, others feel the same, thus the investigation that is taking place.
Perhaps you could. But we're discussing Russia and Trump right now and "You too" doesn't rescue Russia from having done this.
Perhaps you could. But we're discussing Russia and Trump right now and "You too" doesn't rescue Russia from having done this.
In regards to the Clinton campaign making up this entire thing because the need to run in the future...what? Again, this reads like a bad novel with a truck sized plot hole. Have you paid any attention to the Democrats since this loss? Right now they're having discussions about needing new blood to run for office, having lost touch with the middle class, improving their local and state elections game - even talking about how maybe they're too harsh and need to be "nicer" to people that voted for Trump. I've seen nothing about people complaining that the Democratic party is fine and that it was all due to those dastardly, clever Russians. How people could buy this as a motivation for the Democrats, much less how they themselves could pull off making it look like Russia did this while they themselves did this...now we truly are in conspiracy theory territory. Which I have discovered, seems to be a common way of thinking among those that deny Russian involvement in our election.
It's NOT very plausible though. Sure, I'll buy that Hillary doesn't like Putin. I don't like Putin. If that's enough to suspect involvement in this grand scheme of yours, well, there's an awful lot of people that dislike Putin. Trust me, that's no hypothesis. It's more like a wild ass accusation based on zero evidence.
zorq
Veteran Member
I know about Barbos, but I don't think his contacts have any more interaction with actual data than anyone else. Probably less. His contacts are likely saturated in a media bubble contaminated by Russian propoganda. Just like Republicans in the US, If Fox News, Limbaugh, and Hannity say it, they believe it because their friends and family say the same things and that gives it legitimacy. But their friends learned their talking points from Fox News too. When everyone in your world says the same thing you believe it even when it's BENGAZI. But the Russian government has a documented history of actively producing disinformation AND suppressing inconvenient truths. Russians living in Russia might be the least well informed about what's going on in the far corners of Russia.
Barbos's Russian connections carry very little sway with me. I'm trying to get him to think about just how legitimate his knowledge of Russia is.
zorq
Veteran Member
You say the word "introspection" as if you have never even tried it before. It's really not that painful.
Listen, isn't it a significant coincidence that the first time you started disbelieving Western media happened to coincide with Russia's first major meddling with it's media? Doesn't that seem the least bit fishy to you?
You don't think it's at all possible that you swallowed a poisoned apple of information and you never realized it?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
I'll go further. barbos is a fake news source, part of the Russian apparatchik designed to destroy trust in the value of truth. If push comes to shove he'll tell us that those killed by air strikes in Aleppo blew themselves up to discredit the Russians giving aid to Syria.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Feel free to provide this forum some of those measures so we can validate your claim.
barbos
Contributor
I did not say you did, but many of the liberals did, Colbert Report was hugely popular and considered as source of news despite being a comedy show, more so than RT.
It does not rescue US or Clinton either. Countries are run by people, not robots. US has been pissing off Russia for a long time.
barbos
Contributor
You are aware that Russia placed counter-sanctions? And what do you know about sanctions in the first place? what is the most important part of it?
barbos
Contributor
Yesterday, my "contact" was an article in russian by a British professor who write books and who speak both russian and georgian and who has been living/visiting Georgia/Russia for the last couple of decades. And most of your contacts about Russia are named John McCain.
Despite what your TV says Russia do have relatively free sources of information. Yes, Government has a tight control over TV and to a lesser degree ordinary papers and radio. But internet only based papers are relatively free from government control, that is as long as they don't directly mock (SNL style) the government they are fine. Russian politicians, even pro-western ones generally suck at taking satire well. So if internet paper appears impartial and does not become FoxNews like it will be safe from government wraith, at least for now.
In short, Russia is not China.
barbos
Contributor
Here is an example of MSM reporting on Russia.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/dead-russians/index.html
It's pretty clear that CNN wants americans to believe that this character named Putin is assassinating his critics.
But lets look closely what they reported and what they forgot to report.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/dead-russians/index.html
It's pretty clear that CNN wants americans to believe that this character named Putin is assassinating his critics.
But lets look closely what they reported and what they forgot to report.
Voronenkov was a moderately wealthy "businessman" and a member of Duma from Communist party who was accused of basically stealing buildings, was not known for any criticism of Putin whatsoever. He only became an "opponent" of a "regime" when said "regime" accused him of economic crimes and he refused to face the music and ran to Ukraine. His killer (who was killed by bodyguard) was an ukrainian who served in Ukrainian army and took part in the War in Eastern Ukraine. Interesting part about him he was on the ukrainian list of wanted by their justice system while serving in their army, great, right? Ukrainian President cracked the case within hours and found out that the killer was a russian FSB agent wast trained and sent to Ukraine to take part in war in Eastern Ukraine and then murder that guy I guess. He was so "well" trained that he managed to get killed. And yes Russian FSB is so desperate for secret agents that they would take anyone, even people who are on the Wanted list
Magnitsky affair happened in 2009. The lawyer was helping workers to lift bathtub to the attic of his apartment using inadequate winch. In other words Putin had been waiting 8 years for the right moment to make it look like an accident.
Last edited:
braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
barbos, I think you know a couple of lone quotes out in the wilderness cannot be assessed by me or anyone else for veracity and bias. Why didn't you reveal your sources? Otherwise, I can bring out some quotes of self-described "experts" on Facebook. Or even Colbert.
beero1000
Veteran Member
Can you see why parroting back the Russian state-controlled media narrative while leaving these details out makes you seem SUPER disingenuous? Even stooge-like.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/world/europe/russia-sergei-magnitsky-william-browder.html said:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/03/24/lawyer-with-key-evidence-in-russian-corruption-scandals-falls-from-building-before-testifying said:
barbos
Contributor
I don't have some secret sources. It's all known by pretty much anyone in Russia who reads the news. And it's certainly should have been known by CNN.
barbos
Contributor
I am not parroting anything, I am merely pointing out that CNN failed to mention some things which completely destroy their narrative.
Browder is the source? I would hate to break it for you, but he is most likely lying.
beero1000
Veteran Member
You can't even see it at this point, can you? In too deep, I guess.
barbos
Contributor
So Browder is the source. What do you know about that guy?
How does he know what happened there? Was he present?
Do you understand how insane he sounds?
braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
So, please produce links to these sources, thanks.
barbos
Contributor
Do you understand spoken russian?
Here is a video for you then:
http://gordonua.com/news/worldnews/...-vypal-iz-okna-pyatogo-etazha-smi-179481.html
In any case I am not the one who has to provide sources, it's CNN has to provide sources for their article and they did not, instead they flat out lied as far as I am concerned.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,986
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Clearly so. Amazing how people who criticize Putin usually meet unfortunate ends.