KremlinGate

1041 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

Release of Nunes Memo Throws Anti-Russia Campaign Into Disarray

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/02/03/nune-f03.html

"...The contents of the memo are another demonstration of the manufactured and partisan character of the anti-Russia campaign and the Democrats' allegation that Trump 'colluded' with Russia. What is playing out is a partisan battle between two criminal and reactionary factions of the state apparatus, centering ultimately around differences over foreign policy. The memo has undermined the aura of professional impartiality that the Democrats and their semi-official news outlets, the New York Times and the Washington Post, have sought to cultivate around the so-called 'intelligence community."

josh

bekayne wrote:

Going the full Hannity.

Or full Trump

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/959798743842349056

Pogo Pogo's picture

The Nunes memo is clearly a political document as it is almost completely lacking in substance.  Moveover it often inadvertently corrroborates the case against Trump in its rush to expose FBI issues.

Two points to remember:

  1. The standards for evidence gathering are a lot lower than those for bringing charges. You don't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to begin surveillance
  2. The evidence in the memo is a small part of what was put before the judge. The other evidence may or may not have been sufficient - we don't know (we also don't know what follow-up questions were asked by court).

I don't doubt that there are people that bend the rules for the Democrats (just like the NY FBI has been called Trumplandia). The system in government in the US has political influence flowing throughout.  However the Nunes memo does not expose anything, except the desperation of the Trump team.

 

NDPP

"The FBI and many Democrats, insisted vehemently that release of the Nunes Memo would endanger national security. Now that we've all read it, [see #799] is there anyone who believes that this argument was even remotely true or honest?"

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/959784636867141632

 

The Memo: Democrats Made Up Evidence Enabled Eavesdropping on Trump Campaign

https://t.co/gKdgT1aJb6

"The turn of the anti-Trump campaign from 'Publishing the memo is treason!' to 'The published memo is a nothing burger.' was quite amusing to watch. It demonstrated that there is some panic that more might be revealed. David Habakukk at Sic Temper Tyrannis puts the anti-Trump anti-Russia campaign into its much larger context..."

contrarianna

Pogo wrote:

The Nunes memo is clearly a political document as it is almost completely lacking in substance.  Moveover it often inadvertently corrroborates the case against Trump in its rush to expose FBI issues....

FISA, as an agency of a government, is automatically political as is what which emerges from it, be it investigations or memo critiques. You can choose the faction you like. 

I'm not sure how you got the idea that the memo "inadvertently corrroborates the case against Trump in its rush to expose FBI issues" but it sounds a bit like the Intercept's:

NUNES MEMO ACCIDENTALLY CONFIRMS THE LEGITIMACY OF THE FBI’S INVESTIGATION
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/02/nunes-memo-fisa-trump-russia/

That article artfully weaselizes the word "legitmacy".  "Legitimacy" can either mean "legality" or more generally, "validity".  It's obvious the authors also wish to imply the latter without openly committing to it.  FISA has always been an automatic rubber stamp for investigation requests.

Oppressive survelliance states invariably legalize unconscionable survelliance and actions against their own populace so it always, in one sense, "legitimate".

Both Democratic and Republican factions of the survelliance state oligarchy will make hypocritical Trump-like twitterings about the other side violating "the sacred investigative process" when their particular elite figures are targetted.

However, the Republican-Democrat surveillence oligarchy is bipartisan and enthusiastically in accord when making "legitimate" the targeting of the general populace.

The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless, Treasonous Authoritarian Just Voted to Give Him Vast Warrantless Spying Powers
Glenn Greenwald
January 12 2018, 

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/the-same-democrats-who-denounce-trum...

Pogo Pogo's picture
  1. The document ignores mention of critical issues that would have been part of the FISA application.

    1. That Carter Page had been on the radar for years regarding unsavoury connections.
    2. George Papadopolous had raised alarm bells with his drunken admissions.
  2. No mention of critical information in the application
    1. No mention of the courts questions back to the applicants (pretty key if you are saying the process didn't cover certain ground.
    2. No mention of what the intercepted communications at the time was saying (which experts say would be included in an application like this)
  3. Stating that the Dossier was a Democrat creation when the original impetutus was a right wing  group.
    1. Fusion the organization paying for the document on behalf of the Democratic Party has worked for both Republicans and Democrats.  There is no prima facia evidence that Steele would even know he was working for Democrats.
  4. The long time delay before the dossier reached Comey underscores that there a pro Trump faction working in the FBI.
  5. The Republican complaint that Steele went to the media highlights his worry that there was a pro Trump group at the FBI.
  6. The FISA application was 3 months into the FBI investigation.  To say that the only thing the FBI was doing was reading the dossier is laughable.

The upshot is that the Nunes report does not discredit the FISA application.  The investigation is legitimate. This has been confirmed by a number of Republicans including Trey Gowdy who did the research.  The question turns on what is in the dossier that has caused Republicans to make such a hamfisted attempt to discredit it? (money laundering?)

josh

And the phony memo serves its purpose.  Discussion of Russian interference and collusion and Trump’s obstruction of justice put on the back burner.  

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/HWb5yOFCUU0

"Troubling facts behind Nunes Memo & FISA Court."

bekayne

Now I've seen everything! Judge Jeanine on globalresearch.ca

https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-wag-the-dog-and-the-kremlin-dossier-...

josh

Russbots big factor in pushing in getting Republican memo released.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/04/trump-twitter-russians-release-the-memo-216935

josh
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Jen Sorensen nails it.

josh

Like it.  LOL.

NDPP

CrossTalk Bullhorns: Post Memo (and vid)

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/417861-gop-memo-trump-fbi/

"The memo has come and gone, but this controversy is far from over. Who, if anyone, will be held accountable?"

contrarianna

josh wrote:

Russbots big factor in pushing in getting Republican memo released.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/04/trump-twitter-russians-release-the-memo-216935

The second tme you've posted this particular BS.

Russiagate conspiracy mongers and their relentless media would have us believe there would never be sufficient Republican maneuvering (or homegrown interest in the secret workings of the government survelliance state) to make the politicized memo go twitter viral without the help of the Satanic Russian Snark.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
   That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
   What I tell you three times is true."

That Politico story, written by former Mikheil Saakashvili advisor, McKew, gives the same disreputable source for its claims as original story, also posted in this thread, from the Business Insider:

josh wrote:

#releasethebots 

[Russia-linked Twitter accounts are working overtime to help Devin Nunes and WikiLeaks
Natasha Bertrand Jan 19, 2018, 1:58 PM ET]

https://amp.businessinsider.com/release-the-memo-campaign-russia-linked-twitter-accounts-2018-1?__twitter_impression=true 

The sole "authority" in both stories for  the russiabots claim is "Hamilton86", a "PropOrNot" operation run by ultra-rightist, hot warrior, Clint Watts and paid for by the bipartisan neocon coalition, "Alliance for Securing Democracy" with such neocon luminaries as Bill Kristol. 

The Business Insider, as is the "PropOrNot" purveyor, the Washington Post, are both owned by Amazon mogul Jim Bezos who happens to have a $600 million contract with the CIA, --which may or may not be considered a conflict of interest:

WPost’s New ‘Fake News’ on Russian ‘Hack’
January 2, 2017

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/02/wposts-new-fake-news-on-russian-ha...

About the neocon "Alliance for Securing Democracy" here from July 2017:

With New D.C. Policy Group, Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/17/with-new-d-c-policy-group-dems-conti...

The evidence-free nature of the propaganda purveying "anti-propaganda" site "Hamilitin86" has been noted by others but the core problem is summed up in Greenwald's  tweet:

@ggreenwald
Does it matter at all that this website - started by Bill Kristol, CIA officials and Dem neocons - refuses to say which accounts they count as "Russia-linked" & refuse to say how they determine this? Why would any rational person take this group's pronouncement as Gospel?

Clint Watts is hardly new to the "Russiagate" scene:

Meet Clint Watts, a Dubious Russia Meddling 'Expert' Lobbying the U.S. Government to 'Quell Information Rebellions'
With a sketchy past in the counterterror swamp, Watts has suggested media censorship as a remedy to Russian interference.

By Max Blumenthal / AlterNetNovember 8, 2017, 

....

The censorious overtone of Watts’ [Congressional] testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act.

And not one member of Congress rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently.

The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media—including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter....

[Sidenote: These are the same Congressional "freedom-loving" Democrats who just voted their alleged Kremlin puppet Trump additional warrentless survellience powers. 

Authoritarianism is increasingly a bi-partisan love child-- openly approved of by some of Rabble's pretend "progressives". ]

....
Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute..... Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been described by journalist Mark Ames as “one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War days, promoting ‘winnable’ nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable.”

https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/clint-watts-fake-russia-expert

and,
https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/terror-cranks-sold-america-rus...

More about Clint Watts and the "Alliance for Securing Democracy" from The Nation back in Aug 2017:

Our Russia Fixation Is Devolving Into an Assault on Political Discourse
A new project by the German Marshall Fund claims to track the influence of foreign propaganda—but warps reality to accommodate an alarming new Russophobia.

By James Carden

https://www.thenation.com/article/our-russia-fixation-is-devolving-into-...

It makes no  difference to the  Russiagate conspiracy mongers here on Rabble that a source from Twitter claimed that the tweetfest was homegrown:

IT’S COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE
Source: Twitter Pins #ReleaseTheMemo on Republicans, Not Russia
Despite claims the Kremlin is driving a campaign to disclose an anti-FBI memo, a source says an early in-house analysis concludes the hashtag has been mostly pushed by Americans.

BEN COLLINS SPENCER ACKERMAN
01.23.18 5:10 PM ET

https://www.thedailybeast.com/source-twitter-pins-releasethememo-on-repu...

The Twitter source is unnamed, not surprisingly given the Congressional anger against Twitter and Facebook for not being able to come up with their requested "smoking guns". But the article's authors who vetted the twitter source, Senior News Editor Ben Collins and Spenser Ackerman can hardly be cited for either pro- Trump or Russia bias if  you survey the range of their articles.

There has never been such a dangerous coming together of bipartison irrationality and authoritarianism in the benighted country to the south or its pretend progressive camp followers in its colony to the north.

Pogo Pogo's picture

There is a re-occuring theme that certain rabble members are out to get Russia over this issue. I don't see it. I don't think the country that is doing this is really an issue. If Germany/China/Britain was doing this I see a similiar level of interest. The president of the massive country right next to us has serious questions of corruption and collution. That deserves interest.

There is the counter claim of what about Israel? Personally I agree they have too much influence. However this is not an issue of Israel passing money through clandestine chanels.  I would not put it past the country to do that, but it is not what I see.  I see a country skilled at lobbying and mobilizing support getting its way. 

NDPP

Russiagate or Intelgate?  -  by Stephen Cohen

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-or-intelgate/

 

The FISA Memo Is Not A Big Nothing-Burger; It's A Whopper With Fries   - by Ann Garrison

https://blackagendareport.com/fisa-memo-not-big-nothing-burger-its-whopp...

6079_Smith_W

Too bad the House Intelligence Committee voted against releasing the 10-page memo that points out the lies, inaccuracies, and omissions in the Nunes memo. Why would they do that?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/1/16956290/nunes-memo-rel...

josh

I thought they did vote to release it.  But Trump (not suprisingly) has yet to sign off.

6079_Smith_W

Well it is not out yet.

 

josh
NDPP

Why 'Russian Meddling' Is A Trojan Horse

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/09/why-russian-meddling-is-a-trojan...

Prior to the 2016 presidential election, if one were to ask what single act could seal a new Cold War with Russia, align liberals and progressives with the operational core of the American military-industrial complex, expose the preponderance of left-activism as an offshoot of Democratic Party operations and consign most of what remained to personal invective against an empirically dangerous leader, consensus would likely have it that doing so wouldn't be easy..."

NDPP

The FBI And The President - Mutual Manipulation  -  by James Petras

http://www.unz.com/jpetras/the-fbi-and-the-president-mutual-manipulation/

"The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented..."

NDPP

BAR: The War on Dissent

https://blackagendareport.com/war-dissent

"Meanwhile the corporate media continues to pump out Russia paranoia propaganda..."

voice of the damned

The significant threat is the people who elected him, and who voted for Brexit, and the AfD, and Sanders, and Mélenchon, and Corbyn, and who just stayed home on election day and refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. The threat is the attitude of these people. The insubordinate attitude of these people. The childish attitude of these people (who naively thought they could challenge the most powerful empire in the annals of human history … one that controls, not just the most fearsome military force that has ever existed, but the means to control “reality” itself).

Okay, in a charitable mood, I might be convinced that many(though probably not most) of the people who voted for Brexit did so because they were outraged about the EU's hammering of Greece over austerity.

But the AfD? Racism and anti-immigration are the whole raison d'etre of that party. I highly doubt that more than a tiny fraction of a percentage of their voters are motivated by any of the traditional concerns of the left. They are certainly not a group that merits inclusion with Corbyn or Sanders.

And these attempts at upping the profile of the legitimate left by including the populist right always end up facing the same roadblock: If these voters are really looking for the left-wing alternative to the status quo, why didn't they vote for the actual left-wing parties? Like, for example, Melenchon in France.

voice of the damned

And one more thing...

One of my bad habits is reading The Economist magazine, whose political bent is pro-"free market" and neo-liberal. They recently had a feature on political populism, and I can tell you that they are QUITE happy to lump the right-wing populists in with people like Corbyn and Melenchon, presumably to foster a link between progressive economics and racist xenophobia in the reader's mind.

Looks like Black Agenda Report is on board for that as well.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

voice of the damned wrote:

But the AfD? Racism and anti-immigration are the whole raison d'etre of that party. I highly doubt that more than a tiny fraction of a percentage of their voters are motivated by any of the traditional concerns of the left. They are certainly not a group that merits inclusion with Corbyn or Sanders.

I wouldn't compare them to Corbyn or Sanders either. They are definitely a socially conservative group and their platform is largely based on racism and nationalism. One exception though is their policy toward Russia, since many of their supporters are Volga German who (ironically) came to Germany when the doors were thrown open for ethnic German immigrants in the early 90s.

They do share policies with some on the left when it comes to Russia, and the invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and they have strong ties to the Russian government.

On that, they actually share some policies with Die Linke.

Being sort of right on that point doesn't make that editorial any less of a dog's breakfast, though it is kind of interesting he didn't include the Tea Party, the KKK, and fascists with those who are also "challenging the corporatocracy". Doesn't want to show his hand, maybe.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-populists-forge-deepe...

https://www.ft.com/content/1e58cfcc-897a-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787

josh

They link them to smear them.  The only thing they really have in common is their attitude towards the EU.  But they're coming from different directions on that.  One is economic and the other xenophobic.

6079_Smith_W

Not just a smear though. I think the greater motive is to undermine the rule of law and the notion that anything is true. That's why these propaganda campaigns have played on both the right and the left. It doesn't matter that they are opponents to each other; what is important is that both of them oppose the status quo. Of course some of these parties (particularly progressive ones) are more complex than they are framed here. But the point of the editorial is to frame this as a struggle of extreme camps.

voice of the damned

josh wrote:

They link them to smear them.  The only thing they really have in common is their attitude towards the EU.  But they're coming from different directions on that.  One is economic and the other xenophobic.

By "they", you mean the Economist, right? In that case, yes, I agree, the whole point is to get people thinking of anti-neoliberal and anti-immigration parties as one and the same. It's just kind of ironic to see an anti-racist group like Black Agenda Report supporting that viewpoint, however unwittingly.

6079_Smith_W

Well.... whatever Black Agenda Report's slant is, there's nothing in CJ Hopkins's editorial about racism except for him lumping the threat of "white supremacy" as one of the things used as a fake scare tactic by those in power. I wonder how that one got past the editor.

I don't see any real similarity between his position and that of The Economist. His target is systems like the media, government and social media. He doesn't actually make it clear whether he is being serious or ironic when he refers to AfD and other groups as "childish".

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well.... whatever Black Agenda Report's slant is, there's nothing in CJ Hopkins's editorial about racism except for him lumping the threat of "white supremacy" as one of the things used as a fake scare tactic by those in power. I wonder how that one got past the editor.

I don't see any real similarity between his position and that of The Economist. His target is systems like the media, government and social media. He doesn't actually make it clear whether he is being serious or ironic when he refers to AfD and other groups as "childish".

They're similar in that they both think the AfD belongs in the same ideological category as Sanders and Corbyn( or at least that people who vote for the last one have the same motivation as those who vote for the first two). The difference being that The Economist posits that as a way to discredit the left, whereas Hopkins seems to think he's bolstering the left.

As for "childish", I think he means that the elites think it's childish for the people to challenge the status quo, not that it's objectively childish.

 

6079_Smith_W

Well on that point they are right. And not just because they are populist and challenge the status quo.

There are ideological links between some in these groups - specifically framing this all as Russia vs western imperialists. And that does mean signing on for (or turning a blind eye to) the xenophobia and fascist tendencies in some of these groups.

I know there are some on both sides who like to claim this is  black and white. It isn't. Of course I think Hopkins has the easier job here because all he has to do to get his point across is smear everyone.

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well on that point they are right. And not just because they are populist and challenge the status quo.

There are ideological links between some in these groups - specifically framing this all as Russia vs western imperialists. And that does mean signing on for (or turning a blind eye to) the xenophobia and fascist tendencies in some of these groups.

I know there are some on both sides who like to claim this is  black and white. It isn't. Of course I think Hopkins has the easier job here because all he has to do to get his point across is smear everyone.

Yes, but do you really think that the people who vote AfD are, as a rule, motivated by the same thing as the people who vote for Sanders or Corbyn?

And if so, why don't think those people vote for the Sanders/Corbyn equivalent parties in Germany?

6079_Smith_W

Not strictly, but some of the same issues, and the same tactics, certainly. There are people in Labour who supported Brexit. There are plenty of so-called progressives who have a huge blind spot when it comes to Muslims. And clearly Mr. Hopkins doesn't take the issue of white supremacy too seriously since he is willing to just use it as a political football.

So sure, it seems improbable when you try to cast it in black and white, but throwing someone under the  bus for the sake of a political or social cause isn't that uncommon.

NDPP

Neo-McCarthyite Hysteria At US Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/02/15/pers-f15.html

"Not since the McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s has Congress seen such a vitriolic denunciation of supposed foreign subversion. Russia, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the committee, 'perceived its past efforts [at manipulating the 2016 election] as successful and views the 2018 US midterm elections as a potential target.'

The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese 'subversion', but the growth of social opposition within the US. The narrative of 'Russian meddling' has been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free speech..."

6079_Smith_W

@ VOTD

For that matter, we could also ask why the World Socialist Website is taking exactly the same editorial line as the executive branch of the U.S. government, and the Republican majority in Congress.

Does this mean its members are card-carrying Republicans?

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ VOTD

For that matter, we could also ask why the World Socialist Website is taking exactly the same editorial line as the executive branch of the U.S. government, and the Republican majority in Congress.

Does this mean its members are card-carrying Republicans?

I wouldn't put the WSWS on the same list as the Tea Party, for example, at least not if that was meant to imply similar motivations of their supporters.

6079_Smith_W

But both of them share a hatred of  government, and of the media. They are definitely what I would consider objective allies because they both promote ideological war, even if they come at it from different ends of the spectrum.

Also not surprising that both those perspectives like to use the conspiracist "deep state" to refer to the rule of law. Both are enemies of any kind of stability.

To reel this back to the comparison between The Economist and Hopkins. I think it is something fundamentally different because we are talking about media perspectives. I don't agree with the Economist's editorial slant, but it is reputable enough that it is a source of some good information (and I expect you might feel the same if you read it). That editorial is heavy on opinion (read: innuendo), but frankly light on substance.

josh

The evidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win is already compelling, and it grows stronger by the day.

There can be little doubt now that Russian intelligence officials were behind an effort to hack the DNC’s computers and steal emails and other information from aides to Hillary Clinton as a means of damaging her presidential campaign. Once they stole the correspondence, Russian intelligence officials used cutouts and fronts to launder the emails and get them into the bloodstream of the U.S. press. Russian intelligence also used fake social media accounts and other tools to create a global echo chamber both for stories about the emails and for anti-Clinton lies dressed up to look like news.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/16/trump-russia-election-hacking-investigation/

 

Mobo2000

Interesting article posted above, thanks Josh.   I'm not sure it adds anything new to the evidence but a good summary.   Curious to find this editorial take on Russiagate in the Intercept, but maybe they are branching out.

"Earlier this week, meanwhile, top intelligence officials, including Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, underlined their ongoing concerns about Russian election meddling, warning that Moscow once again seems to be seeking to intervene, this time in the 2018 midterm elections. In a congressional hearing, Coats suggested that the Russians believe they were successful in 2016 and want to build on their success in 2018. Coats said that “the 2018 midterm elections are a potential target for Russian influence operations,” and that “at a minimum, we expect Russia to continue using propaganda, social media, false flag personas, sympathetic spokespeople, and other means of influence to try to exacerbate social and political fissures in the United States.”

How is the government going to protect the 2018 midterms from sympathetic spokespeople, propoganda and "other means of influence"?   I guess the vulnerable mind of the American voter will have to rely on the efficacy of Google algorythms and Facebook filters.    Look out fake news, your days are numbered!

 

 

josh

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office said Friday that a grand jury indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for alleged interference in the 2016 presidential elections, during which they boosted the candidacy of Donald Trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/russians-indicted-in-special-counsel-robert-muellers-probe.html

 

NDPP

US Indicts 13 Russians For 2016 Election Meddling, But 'No Allegations' They Influenced Outcome

https://on.rt.com/8zc4

 

13 Russians Indictment Reveals Odd 'Meddling' Efforts

https://on.rt.com/8zcp

 

'Absurd' Meddling Claims & Indictment of Russians Show New US Policy - Russian FM Spokesperson

https://on.rt.com/8zc9

"The entities and individuals were indicted by a US Federal grand jury on Friday of 'supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J Trump...and disparaging Hillary Clinton.' However, there are 'no allegations' that the suspected activities of the Russian nationals somehow affected the polls, according to US Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.

On Friday, Russian FM Sergey Lavrov said that supporting Donald Trump has never been an official Russian policy, even if some Russians did expres their backing of the new US leader. The Minister has expressed his discontent with the apparently continuing nosedive in US-Russia relations. 'It's a pity that under Donald Trump, for more than a year of his presidency, our relations have not improved compared to the period of the Democratic administration. Even worsened to a certain extent,' Lavrov told Euronews."

 

#13 Russians: Underwhelmed Netizens React To US Indictment Over Election Meddling

https://on.rt.com/8zcl

"The overdramatisation of Russian interference in this election cannot be overstated..."

SeekingAPolitic...

voice of the damned wrote:

The significant threat is the people who elected him, and who voted for Brexit, and the AfD, and Sanders, and Mélenchon, and Corbyn, and who just stayed home on election day and refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. The threat is the attitude of these people. The insubordinate attitude of these people. The childish attitude of these people (who naively thought they could challenge the most powerful empire in the annals of human history … one that controls, not just the most fearsome military force that has ever existed, but the means to control “reality” itself).

Bravo Bravo --Seeking

Democracy is a messy business.  If you want a populist left then the populist right needs a democratic outlet as well. I will take the red pill.  If given a choice between with no populist parties and political world with populist of the right and left exist then I am going with the populists.  I am sure how can have a populist left without populist right.

Listening to people on the news that I wanted to sanders so I must have been "dumped" by russian trolls. I like that pass.  But going after Jill Stein as "wasted vote" that worst thing I have heard in a long time.  Let me remind you NDP voters the only reason we a left of centre party without any leftist backbone(how sad) is that we refuse the idea of a wasted vote idea and still stubbornly vote NDP.  So I Salute You Jill Stein someday things will change.

 

 

Okay, in a charitable mood, I might be convinced that many(though probably not most) of the people who voted for Brexit did so because they were outraged about the EU's hammering of Greece over austerity.

But the AfD? Racism and anti-immigration are the whole raison d'etre of that party. I highly doubt that more than a tiny fraction of a percentage of their voters are motivated by any of the traditional concerns of the left. They are certainly not a group that merits inclusion with Corbyn or Sanders.

And these attempts at upping the profile of the legitimate left by including the populist right always end up facing the same roadblock: If these voters are really looking for the left-wing alternative to the status quo, why didn't they vote for the actual left-wing parties? Like, for example, Melenchon in France.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
SeekingAPolitic...

NR You can post 1000 of these articles.  But if the russians warped my mind to believe that I want world peace,  deal with the gross wealth inequality, and I want homeless to be housed.  You want to know what, give more of that of russian kool-aid, I am parched here:).

Pages