Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems to me that there’s another factor, distinctly operative for Russian interference in Western elections, but not American interference (wherever it may be). And that is for the internal consumption, for the people of the interfering-country, rather than the country in which the interference is occurring.
The idea is that democracy itself is hopelessly corrupt, illegitimate and rife with self-contradictions. The relationship between the governed and the government is always predatory and stacked in favor of the latter. True justice and freedom are impossible; we can readily admit this, in an authoritarian state; or we can prevaricate and posture, in a so-called democracy. All politicians lie, be they Left or Right, establishment or outsiders, radicals or reactionaries or moderates. All politics is dirty, and the common man will never get a fair shake, no matter what’s the constitution or the culture or the civic temperament. Within Russia, this is understood about Russia’s government. The people accept it, as tacit acquiescence to the simple reality of life. But what about in the West? Aren’t they “free”, with government “of the people, by the people, for the people”? Well, no; not really. Their slogans are lofty and their founding-authors are eloquent, but look at the implementation… it’s all a bunch of posturing. And look at the outcome – who gets elected? “See, people of Russia, the West is no better than us. On the contrary, we at least admit that there is no solution. But those fools over there still think that just and decent government is actually possible – ha!”
I must admit I think that my government is largely a burden to its people. It serves us so poorly. No one is not going to tell me its not corrupt at every level and every turn. I simply have no faith in it.
I really see where the Russians are coming from in their thoughts, they aren't stupid people and have the sense to ask if another system (such as a multiparty system) would be any better. It's occurred to me that just maybe we in America need to change ours. What do the politicians in DC do for American citizens? I'll bet you could cut government in half and your average citizen wouldn't even notice.
They cant solve problems, what is going on with health care? We've been fighting in the ME for going on 2 decades and there's no end in sight. I think Putin and his people have done a better job than any president or party we have had in my lifetime.
America became great for reasons other than our political system or people. It was more about geographies and available resources and competition for them than anything else. We built a country on a huge land mass brimming with resources that cannot be invaded. We all but exterminated the natives and fought only a few times to keep it together while imposing our system on what was left without interference from outsiders.
What DOES play to the Russians is when significant numbers of Americans distrust their own free media and utterly fail to think for themselves.
As you should but obviously do not. There's not a thing in the rest of your post that's me you're not a victim. Iand most Americans trust nothing from government or media and have not for a LONG time.
Could You help and find a free Center-Right publication to answer questions... We only care for the High Factual Accuracy regardless of where it comes from. I was straight forward as to where it came from .
[i]
No I am not a "sir" and no, I didn't ignore you "stating the following."
I don't think it's about the "center-right" or "center-left" publications; neither will really give you a good understanding of things, because both are obviously skewed.
You have to do your own research and read BOTH "right" and "left" media, in order to get as more accurate picture as possible. With other words you need IN-DEPTH analysis, because see, the problem with "Factual Accuracy" is that SOME facts can be simply easily omitted in the process.
And no, I can't help you with "Free Center-Right publication," because quiet honestly I get my information elsewhere ( other than mainstream American media,) - may be places like BBC, Reuters or Guardian - that's more like it.
Normally I'd be "left" I guess, but I DO see some points the "center-right" are making when it comes to immigration, feminism, LGBT - things like that, and I can't say I don't have "sympathetic ear."
And when it comes to the whole "Russia" issue - I side with the "right-wingers" because the left blew it big time - I put my finger specifically at Clintons as I've already stated many times.
With that being said, I did not even participate in the last elections, because both candidates were unacceptable as far as I am concerned.
This is a prime example of fake news. CNN didn't "admit" anything. They published an opinion piece submitted by a former member of the Trump transition team. It's stated right above the article that "the opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his."
Just about everyone has come to the same conclusion based on the evidence including President Trump that Russia interfered in U.S. elections. Will a video of the intrusion convince you or perhaps a confession?
So can you briefly list the actual Russian interference in the election?? So far, all I have heard the accusation but very little in facts.
The one that everybody seems to agree on, though not proven, is the release of the Podesta emails. Let's be honest, if the Washington Post or the New York Times had released a similar set of Trump emails they probably would have been lauded and won a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting.
If true, the Russians did us a service by releasing the Podesta emails. Maybe we should give them a Pulitzer Prize??
Here's an interesting article beachie. What happened in the past with Hillary and Putin is not as important as the here and now. Political relationships wax and wane. Putin likes to kill people who try to interfere with his power in his country. Why not try to kill someone politically that opposes his authority? It's a proven fact from multiple intelligence agences both here and abroad that Russia interfered with our election and tried to do so in France with the same finger print. Read about Nigel Farage and his increased interest by the investigation as a person of interest that keeps popping up with wikileakes, Assange, and Trump associates.
Putin had a vested interest in seeing Trump win the presidency. The sanctions alone were motivation enough to interfere with our election. In fact Exxon had applied for a waiver to lift sanctions so they could complete the multi billion dollar deal they had with Rosneft, a Russian owned (Putin) oil company. Remember Tillerson, our now sec, of state receiving the Russian order of friendship medal from Putin in 2013? Trump himself has done business with Russian olgarchs and banks and who knows what else. Miss Universe in Russia? He later tweeted "Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe pageant? If so will he will be my new best friend?" If you were Putin would you prefer someone like Trump as president vs someone who criticized you current election as corrupt? Who would you help to win? No brainer. In the end it's about money, corruption, and nefarious means if that's what it takes to obtain the end goal.
...What do the politicians in DC do for American citizens? I'll bet you could cut government in half and your average citizen wouldn't even notice.
One could argue (and this is NOT necessarily my own view!) that the main purpose of government is to help non-average citizens... children, the elderly, the handicapped, for example. In fact they very purpose of government is to take from the able-bodied adults, redistributing the money to others. As an able-bodied adult of middle age, arguably I get very little from the government - as (here we go again - arguably!) it should be. When I was a child, I received government benefits, in the form of free public school. Once I become elderly, I will again receive government benefits, in the form of Medicare and Social Security.
In the intervening years, I would probably benefit if government were "cut in half". But the idea is that I benefited decades ago, and will again benefit decades from now.
No I am not a "sir" and no, I didn't ignore you "stating the following."
I don't think it's about the "center-right" or "center-left" publications; neither will really give you a good understanding of things, because both are obviously skewed.
You have to do your own research and read BOTH "right" and "left" media, in order to get as more accurate picture as possible. With other words you need IN-DEPTH analysis, because see, the problem with "Factual Accuracy" is that SOME facts can be simply easily omitted in the process.
And no, I can't help you with "Free Center-Right publication," because quiet honestly I get my information elsewhere ( other than mainstream American media,) - may be places like BBC, Reuters or Guardian - that's more like it.
Normally I'd be "left" I guess, but I DO see some points the "center-right" are making when it comes to immigration, feminism, LGBT - things like that, and I can't say I don't have "sympathetic ear."
And when it comes to the whole "Russia" issue - I side with the "right-wingers" because the left blew it big time - I put my finger specifically at Clintons as I've already stated many times.
With that being said, I did not even participate in the last elections, because both candidates were unacceptable as far as I am concerned.
This is why We are asking for YOUR ASSISTANCE in presenting publications in line with Your views.
When teenagers TRY, this is the irresponsible response we get from those representing Our own side. You'd rather not help us in our intellectual journey of inquiry... that is not fair. That facts were already stated meaning Your Statement had an air of disrespect for genuine efforts on behalf of anothers time.
Excuse me Madam, I see you are not center right and withdraw my asking for assistance from you. You see how easily it is to misunderstand one anothers intention and once cooled down on my part, I was able to read thoroughly your post. I responded as such asking assistance because I sense your having more right wing sympathy in regards to the Russia topic. Already you have taught me that people are a blend of views, something my environment does not easily lend me. For this lesson, I thank you.
I spent HOURS looking for Center Right and was not successful Madam hence why the explanation not knowing whether she / he was Left OR Right. I tried my best however unsuccessful it had seemed initially from Your POV. Forgive please my lack of knowledge more thoroughly pertaining to the subject.
This is why We are asking for YOUR ASSISTANCE in presenting publications in line with Your views.
When teenagers TRY, this is the irresponsible response we get from those representing Our own side. You'd rather not help us in our intellectual journey of inquiry... that is not fair. That facts were already stated meaning Your Statement had an air of disrespect for genuine efforts on behalf of anothers time.
Excuse me Madam, I see you are not center right and withdraw my asking for assistance from you. You see how easily it is to misunderstand one anothers intention and once cooled down on my part, I was able to read thoroughly your post. I responded as such asking assistance because I sense your having more right wing sympathy in regards to the Russia topic. Already you have taught me that people are a blend of views, something my environment does not easily lend me. For this lesson, I thank you.
I spent HOURS looking for Center Right and was not successful Madam hence why the explanation not knowing whether she / he was Left OR Right. I tried my best however unsuccessful it had seemed initially from Your POV. Forgive please my lack of knowledge more thoroughly pertaining to the subject.
We are sorry You cannot help us more directly.
Yes I do and here is why ;
I build my case on a simple logic; the "right wing" was traditionally hostile to Russia, because of the Soviet system, which was a threat to the "right wing" ideology. This ideology was/is obviously all about the "Capital" and "free market," VS State-controlled economy of the Soviet Union, not to mention the beliefs of the Communist party, basically outlawing the institutions of the private property and entrepreneurship.
The "right wing" obviously wanted this particular ideology to be gone, since it was a threat in empirical and very practical sense of it ( we are talking the Cold War here.)
Once the Soviet system was gone, and Russians lowered their guard, it was an excellent chance for establishing the friendly relations between the two countries, which were always supposed to be the competitors ( I strongly believe,) but to fully cooperate in times of common danger - for example in the current situation with radical Islam, as once they were cooperating during the WWII.
But that's NOT what happened.
Instead of helping new, post-Communist Russia to rebuild and to become a fully- functioning Democratic state, the US government decided to take advantage of the situation and to turn Russia into your typical third-world country, obedient to American corporations.
I've left the link already here ( and everywhere I think) with detailed description on how exactly it happened, and people that were in charge of this approach were NOT the Republicans as one might expect, but DEMOCRATS ( namely Clintons.)
Their plan didn't quite work out, and someone like Putin came to power (unanimously supported by the general population) as the direct result of it.
Being disappointed in the outcome of their endeavor, the Clintons of course keep on beating the drum of war towards Russia, pointing at her authoritarianism ( which they supported to begin with,) and "absence of democracy" ( that they were the first ones to destroy in its nascent form.)
Now Republicans on another hand look at Russia from a very practical point of view. Sort of - hey, we wanted the rule of "capital" and "free market" instead of Soviet ideology - well, Russia is run now by money and "open for business." At the same time it's not the hostile Islamic regime, threatening to blow us up ( as it used to be,) so what's problem? They seem to like their Putin ( we can see the point why,) so why then the Democrats keep on bumping Russia on the "enemy #1" list? What's up with that - all these accusations and reluctance to cooperate with Russia when it comes to Islamic threat?
And I have to admit that their stance is more logical under the circumstances, than that of the Democrats, because it were the Democrats that created this mess to begin with. The Republicans ( other than someone like McCain of course ) are simply trying to deal with the consequences of it in the most reasonable ( and logical) way.
I build my case on a simple logic; the "right wing" was traditionally hostile to Russia, because of the Soviet system, which was a threat to the "right wing" ideology. This ideology was/is obviously all about the "Capital" and "free market," VS State-controlled economy of the Soviet Union, not to mention the beliefs of the Communist party, basically outlawing the institutions of the private property and entrepreneurship.
The "right wing" obviously wanted this particular ideology to be gone, since it was a threat in empirical and very practical sense of it ( we are talking the Cold War here.)
Once the Soviet system was gone, and Russians lowered their guard, it was an excellent chance for establishing the friendly relations between the two countries, which were always supposed to be the competitors ( I strongly believe,) but to fully cooperate in times of common danger - for example in the current situation with radical Islam, as once they were cooperating during the WWII.
But that's NOT what happened.
Instead of helping new, post-Communist Russia to rebuild and to become a fully- functioning Democratic state, the US government decided to take advantage of the situation and to turn Russia into your typical third-world country, obedient to American corporations.
I've left the link already here ( and everywhere I think) with detailed description on how exactly it happened, and people that were in charge of this approach were NOT the Republicans as one might expect, but DEMOCRATS ( namely Clintons.)
Their plan didn't quite work out, and someone like Putin came to power (unanimously supported by the general population) as the direct result of it.
Being disappointed in the outcome of their endeavor, the Clintons of course keep on beating the drum of war towards Russia, pointing at her authoritarianism ( which they supported to begin with,) and "absence of democracy" ( that they were the first ones to destroy in its nascent form.)
Now Republicans on another hand look at Russia from a very practical point of view. Sort of - hey, we wanted the rule of "capital" and "free market" instead of Soviet ideology - well, Russia is run now by money and "open for business."
At the same time it's not the hostile Islamic regime, threatening to blow us up ( as it used to be,) so what's problem? They seem to like their Putin ( we can see the point why,) so why then the Democrats keep on bumping Russia on the "enemy #1" list? What's up with that - all these accusations and reluctance to cooperate with Russia when it comes to Islamic threat?
And I have to admit that their stance is more logical under the circumstances, than that of the Democrats, because it were the Democrats that created this mess to begin with. The Republicans ( other than someone like McCain of course ) are simply trying to deal with the consequences of it in the most reasonable ( and logical) way.
Hope this helps somewhat.
( A ROOM of Teens screeches with HAPPINESS LOL)
( Taking turns reading to each other Your commentary... Some so happy with tears in our eyes... )
Madam Erasure we ( I ) humbly honor the time You invested on behalf of sensitive, hungry teens for Truth. Maybe Adults cannot remember their teen years when inquiry felt within like a matter of life and death. Desperation to KNOW!! A feeling as if one will die if not answered, so easy to be given a broken heart.
I am super excited at Your response! Already divided in small teams to research various facts You presented that we ( I ) was unaware of. I love learning! Yes, I love research even for its own sake! LOL ( Parents briefly inquire what has us a blazed LOL )
Thank You deeply for imparting Your living experience / knowledge freely. You have given us ( me ) much to seek. Can You feel Our Thankful kisses on Your cheek? I don't care if this moment seem unbecoming of a teen of religious / conservative background, I only care that You can feel our JOY!!
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!!! Yes Madam it HELPS!!!
Last edited by Something Needs To Change; 06-10-2017 at 03:05 PM..
A complementary view to the above post (#78) is that the American "right wing" was less concerned about free-market economics than about about nationalism. Russia (as part of the USSR) was the enemy because it was a competing power, encroaching on American hegemony and challenging the American narrative. How? Besides the obvious military issue, America claimed to be the shining city on the hill, the great and transformative hope of mankind. The USSR claimed essentially the same thing. That made it the enemy.
With the collapse of the USSR, Russia ceased to be the most overt national enemy, as it lost its military and political power, and more importantly, the pretense of legitimacy for a competing national narrative. Instead, modern Russia is conceivably an ally of convenience for American nationalism; nominally Christian white-people united in opposition to nominally Muslim brown people. So now, the American right-wing is oddly enough pro-Russia.
Meanwhile, the American left-wing tends to be internationalist. Skeptical of rampant nationalism, it viewed the USSR with less animosity than the right-wing viewed it. But since the collapse of the USSR, the cause of internationalism was more enhanced by support for Western Europe, with Russia becoming something of an adversary to Western Europe. Thus now the American left-wing is more anti-Russia, while the right-wing is more pro-Russia. Ironic, isn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
with detailed description on how exactly it happened, and people that were in charge of this approach were NOT the Republicans as one might expect, but DEMOCRATS ( namely Clintons.)
