How mentally deranged and shortsighted it is that many Repubs are thankful to Putin for helping them win an election.
Castro is dead and Cuba hasn't done anything to threaten us in about 50 years. Russia attacked us this year. You righties had a bird when Obama suggested we have to talk to our enemies. Now Trump want to be pals when his country directly attacked ours.I don't think most Americans really know much about Putin well enough to have a valid opinion of him to be honest. They see memes of him riding a bear, with no shirt, shooting guns. Ignorance can be a killer.
I also have a hard time believing polls at face value after this election. I immediately look at the references, who and how people were polled. No longer do I just see a poll and believe it as fact.
It is funny that some leftists hold Castro in high regard. Wear shirts of him, speak highly of him. When he was a murderous piece of shit. Hypocrisy, but not unusual. Then speak so poorly of Putin. Obviously, not everyone does this. Just an observation on my part.
If it stops escalating war in Syria, stops a no fly zone, stops our military from attacking Russian military, stops WW3 and stops nukes from flying. You should reconsider just how thankful you should be.
Thankful (/sarc) that our election produced two results of horror, and that the voters simply chose the lesser evil.
The whole rhetoric is irresponsible. I've heard phrases like "Russia attacked us" and "Russia weaponized intelligence."
This is rhetoric. If you look at the reality of what Russia did, yes, they might have selectively leaked information.
...And?
They did not tamper with the machines, they did not wage DDOS attacks, they did not pay off journalists. This scandal is nothing.
So to be clear you believe that a hostile foreign power hacking our political parties and selectively using the information they obtained to influence our elections for the purpose of helping the candidate they view most favorable to their interests is 'nothing'?
lolwut.
He will likely lead the USA now as well, thanks to you.
Yes, I view it as nothing. They got the info because the DNC practiced bad information security. It was a phishing email that Podesta clicked on. It was human error by the DNC.
More rhetoric about "hostile foreign power." They have their own history and concerns and the truth is that the United States has encroached on Russia's sphere of influence by expanding NATO.
I mean, it is disturbing how eager Washington is for a military showdown with Russia. Their own rhetoric has this cumulative effect of inflating any threat beyond all proportion.
So to be clear you believe that a hostile foreign power hacking our political parties and selectively using the information they obtained to influence our elections for the purpose of helping the candidate they view most favorable to their interests is 'nothing'?
lolwut.
The means by which they got it are irrelevant, it is the action they took with the information that matters. You're welcome to view a hostile foreign power intervening in US elections as 'nothing' but you can't expect other people to play along.
Irrelevant. Whatever excuses you're trying to make for Russia repeatedly invading their neighbors is besides the point. The only question is: Is Russia friendly or hostile to the US and its allies? The answer is obviously that it is more hostile than friendly. I'm sorry if you have difficulty accepting that reality.
I'm not sure what news sources you have been reading but this sounds like something directly out of RT and it's sheer nonsense. Friends don't let friends read Russian propaganda.
This is one of those rare times where I agree 100% with what Felix said.Putin is a dangerous dictator and has to be dealt with effectively. Liking him or disliking him is irrelevant. He will likely lead Russia for life.
Something like phishing is just part of the game. I mean, remember when news came out that the USA bugged Angela Merkel's phone? This is all fair game.
What is breaking the rules actually is stuff like when the Chinese state passes on economic espionage results to domestic firms. But in state-to-state relations, phishing for info is pretty routine actually.
Russia invades neighbors because the US interferes with those neighbors. Frankly, we shouldn't be interfering with those neighbors because they are far away and speak a different language and so we only have a partial understanding of the situation down there and as a result we act on our own particular ideals.
I have watched some RT just out of curiousity because it is pilloried so much. Just as a sniff test, I find the warmongering in the Washington Post much more objectionable and detached from reality.
Spying on other countries is most certainly part of the game, but that's also irrelevant. Russia attempting to interfere in our elections is a hostile move that demands a response. It is not something any sovereign country should ever accept.
That's a novel take, that Russia repeatedly invading its neighbors isn't Russia's fault, it's the US's fault! Here's a tip: the only entity to blame for Russia invading its neighbors is Russia.
There's a reason why all of Russia's neighbors want into NATO so badly, it's because of Russia's long, long history of attacking them without provocation. Russia can beat up on them with impunity, and as history shows it does. Russia is terrified of NATO though.
It should tell you a lot that you view a literal Russian state propaganda network as closer to reality than the Washington Post. I strongly suggest you take a step back and think about why you think propaganda is more credible than actual newspapers.
Yeltsin won reelection in Russia with US assistance. The US regularly comments on the internal affairs of other countries, hoping to sway the results of elections in those countries.
Russia invading its neighbors is to protect a sphere of influence and for geopolitical advantage. Crimea for instance controls access to the Black Sea and is where much of their fleet is stationed. I am aware of cause and effect, and see no reason for the United States to interfere over there.
Yes, it is a testament to the unreality of the WAPO and the DC establishment that this is so. It's called weighing the evidence for yourself and forming your own opinion.
The whole rhetoric is irresponsible. I've heard phrases like "Russia attacked us" and "Russia weaponized intelligence."
This is rhetoric. If you look at the reality of what Russia did, yes, they might have selectively leaked information.
...And?
They did not tamper with the machines, they did not wage DDOS attacks, they did not pay off journalists. This scandal is nothing.
Yeltsin won reelection in Russia with US assistance. The US regularly comments on the internal affairs of other countries, hoping to sway the results of elections in those countries.
Russia invading its neighbors is to protect a sphere of influence and for geopolitical advantage. Crimea for instance controls access to the Black Sea and is where much of their fleet is stationed. I am aware of cause and effect, and see no reason for the United States to interfere over there. This only happens because the US interferes with Russia's neighbors. The USA is also easily fooled by pro-democracy rhetoric. Hillary Clinton was fooled into Libya by such talk. It happens.
Yes, it is a testament to the unreality of the WAPO and the DC establishment that this is so. It's called weighing the evidence for yourself and forming your own opinion.
Irrelevant. The actions of the US in no way dictate what the US should accept from other countries. For example, the US bombs other countries all the time. That does not mean if Russia dropped a bomb on Times Square that we should ignore it. They have committed a hostile act, and that demands a response.
Yes, Russia is invading its neighbors because it thinks it is to their advantage to do so. In no way does that alleviate Russia from responsibility for those invasions.
Again, this is why those countries can't wait to get into NATO: they are tired of being invaded by a hyper-aggressive major power in that region.
Exactly my point! You have weighed the evidence and somehow, bafflingly, come to the conclusion that Russian propaganda is telling you the closest to the truth. That should be a huge flashing warning to you that you are not evaluating the evidence effectively.
We shouldn't be bombing countries all the time. It doesn't make it right, but it also means we need to recognize the root cause and motivation.
Russia is invading its neighbors out of fear of encirclement. Look, if Russian forces were deployed in Mexico, you bet we would be on edge. We are doing this via NATO to Russia, and then wonder why they lash out.
For the record, I don't really make a habit of watching RT. This is more a diss of the WAPO, which I hold in very low regard. In general, I have come to see Stephen Cohen of The Nation's thoughts on the matter to be most convincing.
Maybe we shouldn't be bombing other countries, but again just because we bomb other countries doesn't mean that we should accept being bombed. Regardless of any action the US takes in terms of elections of other countries, it's in our best interest to make Russia abundantly aware of the fact that they will pay for taking this action.
So basically what this means is that Russia requires the states around it to align with it or face invasion. This sure sounds like their fault, not ours.
You're welcome to not like the Washington Post of course, but let's not descend into the absurd. Whatever your complaints about the Post, it is not a government funded propaganda network like RT.
Irrelevant. The actions of the US in no way dictate what the US should accept from other countries. For example, the US bombs other countries all the time. That does not mean if Russia dropped a bomb on Times Square that we should ignore it. They have committed a hostile act, and that demands a response.
Yes, Russia is invading its neighbors because it thinks it is to their advantage to do so. In no way does that alleviate Russia from responsibility for those invasions.
Again, this is why those countries can't wait to get into NATO: they are tired of being invaded by a hyper-aggressive major power in that region.
Exactly my point! You have weighed the evidence and somehow, bafflingly, come to the conclusion that Russian propaganda is telling you the closest to the truth. That should be a huge flashing warning to you that you are not evaluating the evidence effectively.
Russia should pay--proportionately. There likely is a similar level of cyber attack that the United States can wage. But this is not an act of war or a "weaponized" anything. It is mischief. So any military action against them for this would be unwarranted and completely disproportionate.
Russia has legitimate sphere of influence concerns. And it is their neighborhood. They live there. They speak the language and understand the culture better than we ever could. You still haven't answered how you would respond if Russia had troops in Mexico. The US definitely freaked out when Cuba had nukes stationed there.
The BBC is also government funded, and yet it is held in high esteem. RT is demonized because people demonize Russia beyond objective reason. I have reason to be suspicious of our own media, and since I am a native of the USA I have the cultural nuance to fully understand their faults.
I haven't seen anyone call for military action against Russia for this. We can do a lot of other things to them, and we should.
I don't see how this is relevant or why Russia understanding local cultures makes it okay for them to extract alignment with Russia from neighboring countries with the threat of invasion.
You don't type like a native of the US, but regardless your attempt to compare the BBC with RT is absurd and I think you know that. The reason why RT is 'demonized' is due to their long history of pretty blatant propaganda. They did it to themselves.