A Place for Paramahansa Yogananda Devotees  

Go Back   A Place for Paramahansa Yogananda Devotees > Discussion Categories > Social Awareness, Politics and World Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-19-2018, 09:28 PM   #321
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
Another interesting perspective on possible Russian motives:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/samue..._12801892.html

"From a tactical standpoint, interfering in the US election process also expands Russian soft power by giving Russia a political support base in the United States that is amenable to Putin’s authoritarian, socially conservative style of government. Right-wing nationalists in the United States drawn to Trump’s candidacy have also been attracted to Putin’s socially conservative agenda, anti-LGBT legislation in Russia, and Moscow’s hardline approach to combatting Islamic extremism.

Russia’s outreach to the alt-right in the United States closely resembles its cordial relationships with anti-EU, far-right political parties in Europe. Covertly crusading against Clinton’s presidential campaign helps Moscow curry the favor of right-wing populists in the Republican Party, giving Putin a political base within the United States. This support base could eventually give Moscow a voice in the US media and government."
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 09:31 PM   #322
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
So apparently it was Sanders and Stein that unknowingly received aid from the Russians, along with Trump. Would you call Sanders and Stein supporters the alt-right?

You also have to admit, its more than a little ironic that a team of 13 Russian meddlers, not officially proven to be connected to the Russian government, are being blamed for Hillary's loss, while decades of active meddling in foreign elections by the CIA and other intelligence agencies go completely unnoticed.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 09:33 PM   #323
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvpeacejoy View Post
Perhaps petrodollar could have been at the heart of this.
Interesting that Putin has officially announced Russia will have its own crypto currency in the near future.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 10:03 PM   #324
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by khitomer View Post
So apparently it was Sanders and Stein that unknowingly received aid from the Russians, along with Trump. Would you call Sanders and Stein supporters the alt-right?

You also have to admit, its more than a little ironic that a team of 13 Russian meddlers, not officially proven to be connected to the Russian government, are being blamed for Hillary's loss, while decades of active meddling in foreign elections by the CIA and other intelligence agencies go completely unnoticed.
There is a different narrative playing in your head which compels you to deflect from the point I am trying to make.

It is not about whether Hillary won or lost due to the Russian interference. It is about why they (russians) tried so hard to ensure her defeat. Why did they throw so much of their effort behind Trump? What was in it for them?
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 10:08 PM   #325
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Your first point is an inaccurate subjective opinion, so it does not bear indulging.

As far as the second point, Mueller said they tried to aid Sanders and Stein, and later Trump (presumably once he cemented being the front runner).

To your question about why they didnt want Hillary to win, isnt that rather obvious? Just look at her record as Secretary of State and the stereotypical big government interventionist stance she took on all manner of policy issues like Iran.

The personal history between Clinton and Putin is pretty bad too. Much like when Bush invaded Iraq after Saddam had threatened to have Bush Sr killed by an assassin.

"It goes back to her time as secretary of state, her comments around the demonstration in December 2011. She was also in office when the Magnitsky Act was passed, which enacted sanctions on high-level Russian officials who were involved in the death of a Russian whistleblower. This was one of the very few times sanctions had been targeted against specific individuals. The Russians thought they were being singled out by this act. After the Russian annexation of Crimea, Hillary Clinton also said that this is something that Hitler would do, which is not a very solicitous thing to say, particularly given 20 million Russians died in World War II."

~ Timothy Frye, professor of post-Soviet foreign policy and the chair of the political science department at Columbia University.

Last edited by khitomer; 02-19-2018 at 10:28 PM.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 10:43 PM   #326
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by khitomer View Post
So apparently it was Sanders and Stein that unknowingly received aid from the Russians, along with Trump. Would you call Sanders and Stein supporters the alt-right?
Support for Sanders and Stein was a split-the-dem-votes strategy.

It was a clever two-pronged approach to ensuring Hillary's defeat. Well played, I say.
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 10:56 PM   #327
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Right, so the support for those running against Clinton, at whatever stage of the campaign, had nothing to do with tacit 'support' for alt-right. It was aiding those against Clinton at every turn, including other Democrats. If it turned out that some other Republican other than Trump had won the nomination, they would have tried to aid him too.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 11:11 PM   #328
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by khitomer View Post
Right, so the support for those running against Clinton, at whatever stage of the campaign, had nothing to do with tacit 'support' for alt-right. It was aiding those against Clinton at every turn, including other Democrats. If it turned out that some other Republican other than Trump had won the nomination, they would have tried to aid him too.
Huh? Have you even read the report?
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 11:19 PM   #329
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Instead of asking that question, why dont you quote specifics in the report that you think contradict what I said?

If the goal was to destabilize and try to prevent Clinton from winning, by giving shadow support to whichever campaign was running against Clinton, first Sanders and Stein, then later Trump, why would it be inaccurate to logically conclude that they would have given shadow support to any other candidate who happened to run against Clinton, other than those who did?
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 11:24 PM   #330
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...robe-over.html


"The conservative press was abuzz over the indictment of 13 Russians for election interference announced on Friday as part of Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. Multiple outlets seized on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s statement in a press conference that the indictment did not contain allegations of American collusion with the individuals being charged. This does not preclude the possibility that additional charges may be filed against Americans in the near future. Nevertheless, the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro claimed that the takeaway from the indictment is that “supposed Trump–Russia collusion doesn’t seem to exist.”

“Collusion only counts if you know you’re soliciting help from foreign sources,” he wrote. “Those involved with the Trump campaign apparently didn’t. That blows a rather large hole in the theory that the Russians were working hand-in-glove with Trump campaign officials.”

Hot Air’s Allahpundit highlighted a section of the indictment stating that some defendants “communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign:

If Trump’s associates were “unwitting,” i.e. unaware that they were cooperating with Russians, what’s left of “collusion”? Maybe there’s a charge to be uncorked if Team Trump didn’t know it was talking to Russians but did believe that it was talking to other people who’d obtained the DNC and Podesta emails, like Wikileaks. The hacking is an underlying crime here, irrespective of whether the people responsible were foreign or domestic actors. But typically under U.S. law it’s not a crime to receive information that you’re not legally allowed to access, only to steal it in the first place. That’s why leakers can be imprisoned but the reporters to whom they pass their info can’t. If Team Trump coordinated with people who possessed the hacked emails in order to release them at critical moments during the campaign, is that in itself a crime? I’d guess not.

Many also made hay of the indictment’s listing of faux pro-Hillary groups and social media posts put together by Russians. “Mueller’s indictment confirms what legal representatives for both Facebook and Twitter told a Senate panel on Oct. 31 last year: that Russian operatives sought to harm America by undermining public confidence in President Trump’s election,” the Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson wrote. “Russian operatives also sought to promote the left-wing identity politics that currently dominate the Democratic Party, previous reporting has shown. One Russian account promoted a militant, left-wing form of feminism, similar to the kind pushed by Women’s March organizers.”

Similarly, the Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft highlighted pro-Hillary groups and events put together by Russians. “In the indictment Mueller and his team of far left attorneys and Obama supporters claim Russia used the internet to push ads that were in support of Donald Trump for president,” he wrote. “That is not accurate. That is a deep state lie. Several of these online groups were pro-Hillary and even HELD RALLIES for Hillary. United Muslims of America was NOT pro-Trump.” What the indictment actually claims is that the Russians named were engaged in efforts to “interfere with elections and political processes,” which, while involving social media activity on the behalf of a variety of candidates and causes, centered around support for Trump “by early to mid 2016.”

“The interference seems aimed at bolstering what all of us thought were the LEAST LIKELY candidates in the primary: Trump, Sanders, Stein. The Russians attacked Cruz and Rubio and other GOP candidates as well as Clinton. After the election they helped organize anti-Trump rallies,” the RedState blogger Streiff wrote. “More importantly, there is no evidence here that there was any coherent strategy–or that they really knew what they were doing–beyond garden variety trolling.”

On his show, Rush Limbaugh dismissed the indictment, arguing that what the Russians are accused of doing is no different from other political advocacy on social media:

You know what’s amazing, the number of Americans in social media trying to affect the outcome of the election is in the millions. You get my point here. Why are they doing it? They’re attempting to sabotage one candidate and elect another. And both sides. Trump supporters are trying to sabotage Hillary on social media, visa versa. And yet the Russians are portrayed here as the only ones doing it and it was so bad we have to indict them. The Russians weren’t doing anything that’s not being done by others, including Americans.

And I can’t stand this idea watching these cable news people act like this is the epitome of offensive outrage and behavior. Can you believe what the Russians were doing? Give me a break, can you believe what the Russians were doing. This is what has become of the internet in many ways. This is exactly how social media has used for a long time, long before the 2016 election came along."
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 11:54 PM   #331
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by khitomer View Post
Do you not see the strategy behind a "pro" Hillary campaign that goes "United MUSLIMS for America"

Post-election rallies against trump don't amount to anything meaningful. Same people now covering their tracks after getting trump elected.

But, never mind. I don't think our discussion is leading to any meaningful dialogue. A one-upmanship link war is not my idea of a conversation. You do not appear to be invested in the topic. Each response is a reactionary shoot from the hip to see what will stick. I could be wrong.
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 12:30 AM   #332
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
No, the discussion is leading to points that contradict your anti-Trump focused assertions, so its understandable you want to disengage.

As Shapiro and others have pointed out, there is still no factual evidence that the Trump campaign knowingly colluded with Russians. The 'unwitting' ie; unaware aspect of the campaigns of Sanders, Stein and later Trump, in being unwittingly aided by the Russian trolls, speaks to further refute the Trump-Russia collusion narrative of the left.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 01:14 AM   #333
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by khitomer View Post
No, the discussion is leading to points that contradict your anti-Trump focused assertions, so its understandable you want to disengage.

As Shapiro and others have pointed out, there is still no factual evidence that the Trump campaign knowingly colluded with Russians. The 'unwitting' ie; unaware aspect of the campaigns of Sanders, Stein and later Trump, in being unwittingly aided by the Russian trolls, speaks to further refute the Trump-Russia collusion narrative of the left.
Thanks much for understanding. Indeed quite thoughtful of you.
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 01:47 AM   #334
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Thanks for admitting your anti-Trump bias by thanking me for being understanding. At least you are being honest here.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 02:30 AM   #335
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stream View Post
Something is amiss, but things are often not what they seem.

I never bought that story of Russian interference. When it first surfaced, in a presidential debate, it seemed a desperate, and somewhat comical, attempt by Hillary Clinton to get the spotlight off her e-mail scandal.

Look into the petrodollar wars for greater insight into the economic camp that Clinton is part of. This camp insists on an artificially created demand for the dollar, which maintains the value of the dollar. This dynamic is unsustainable in the long run. After taking out Saddam and Gaddafi, both of whom directly threatened the petrodollar's hegemony, the next 'Hitler' (for not playing along) in the crosshairs was Putin. The war drums were getting louder each day, but Putin understood the dynamic and had aligned himself with China. The west tried hard to provoke Russia and to set traps, but the 'bear' did not bite.

Donald Trump is not in the petrodollar camp, and therefore doesn't see Russia as a threat. This is a good thing, because America can't compete, in the longer run, with other nations based on a 'money changers' scheme as the petrodollar.

At present, under Trump, the US is in a transition, away from the petrodollar and back towards becoming a manufacturing nation. Once that transition is complete, the American economy can thrive again, but in the meantime there will be many awkward moments as Trump withdraws the US from internatiional trade agreements that didn't benefit the American worker (but that the US could afford under the petrodollar scheme). America doesn't need the petrodollar, but those in its camp won't easily step aside.

I believe, or hope, this to be the essence of the Trump presidency. Outside of that theme, it's pretty much a mess, but the theme itself is important enough to see it through. Trump understands money, and he can see that China is positioning itself as a formidable world power. The US will not be able to compete with China based on the petrodollar, because China has been at work on undermining its power (by offering a gold-backed currency, where the dollar is just printed paper backed by military might). So the US has no other option but to return to becoming a manufacturing nation.
Check this out:
http://www.philly.com/philly/columni...-20171102.html

This article carries the views of Yevgenia Albats, author of the seminal book KGB:The State within the State.

"Understanding that KGB dominance helps answer the big question: Why did the Kremlin try to hurt Hillary Clinton and presumably help Donald Trump?

Albats cites two key reasons: Putin’s yen for revenge against Clinton and his desire to discredit the U.S. ballot. The Russian leader’s KGB mentality is the key to both.

Putin believed Washington was behind the so-called color revolutions in several ex-Soviet republics in the 1990s, while Bill Clinton was president. He held Hillary personally responsible for massive protests in Russia in 2011 and 2012 against unfair elections. And he “absolutely believed” the United States organized a popular uprising in Kiev in 2014 that led to the ouster of a Putin-backed Ukrainian president.

“Putin thought, ‘You, Clinton, did what you did in my backyard. I’ll show you what I can do to you,’” says Albats. “They can’t comprehend the idea that people might rise up out of convictions.”

Moreover, the Kremlin “was afraid of Hillary” because they believed she would maintain U.S. sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “There was constant anti-Clinton and pro-Trump propaganda on Russian TV in 2016,” she recalled. The Kremlin was convinced Trump would lift the sanctions, which had really hurt the ruling elite.

But the Kremlin also believed U.S. polls and thought Trump couldn’t win the election. So Putin’s second goal, Albats says, was “to bring about chaos. Putin believes in managed chaos.” The aim was to exacerbate divisions in U.S. society as well as harm the reputation of the woman he thought would win.

The Russian leader also wanted to message to his own people that “U.S. democracy doesn’t exist, or fair elections, and that freedom leads to chaos.” The leading Russian talk show host, Dmitry Kiselyov, a mouthpiece for Putin, told his audience in September 2016, on state-controlled TV, that the U.S. establishment might kill Trump because he was ready to come to an agreement with Russia. In other words, the U.S. system is no different from theirs."
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 02:46 AM   #336
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stream View Post

At present, under Trump, the US is in a transition, away from the petrodollar and back towards becoming a manufacturing nation. Once that transition is complete, the American economy can thrive again, but in the meantime there will be many awkward moments as Trump withdraws the US from internatiional trade agreements that didn't benefit the American worker (but that the US could afford under the petrodollar scheme). America doesn't need the petrodollar, but those in its camp won't easily step aside.

I believe, or hope, this to be the essence of the Trump presidency. Outside of that theme, it's pretty much a mess, but the theme itself is important enough to see it through. Trump understands money, and he can see that China is positioning itself as a formidable world power. The US will not be able to compete with China based on the petrodollar, because China has been at work on undermining its power (by offering a gold-backed currency, where the dollar is just printed paper backed by military might). So the US has no other option but to return to becoming a manufacturing nation.
Fingers crossed.

I just hope that in the melee US does not get isolated. A lot of action taken points towards isolationism which might not bode too well in the long term.

Wait n watch.
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 03:13 AM   #337
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
One more interesting perspective on Russia vs Hillary, from an interview with an expert on US-Russia ties:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8...lped-trump-win

"I recently interviewed Trump supporters about why they didn't believe or care about the Russia conflict. Most of them didn't understand Putin would want Trump to be president instead of Clinton.

There are two levels on which this works. The clear one is the policy level, where Hillary Clinton's policies toward Russia were rather on the hawkish end, and she was determined to stand up (in her mind) to Putin. She was much more willing to support, for example, the sending of defensive weapons to Ukraine, to help the Ukrainian army in the fighting in eastern Ukraine. She was much more willing to speak out on the domestic political situation in Russia. She was a staunch supporter of NATO, a staunch supporter of the sanctions [against Russia], and criticized Putin's annexation of Crimea.

Donald Trump took completely opposite positions on all of these issues. He never talks about domestic policy within Russia, except to praise Putin. He argued that his administration would be willing to review the imposition of sanctions on Russia and said that NATO was obsolete. He said that his administration would be willing to review opposition to the annexation of Crimea."
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 05:02 AM   #338
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
"When it comes to Russian collusion during the Cold War, Democrats wrote the playbook.

To understand the Democrats' hypocrisy, one must travel back in time to the presidential election of 1984. The economy was booming thanks to Reaganomics, NASA was flying high, and President Ronald Reagan was running for re-election.

No big fan of Reagan, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., reportedly recruited the Russians to work against the sitting president. According to widely published reports, Kennedy enlisted the help of the Kremlin in attempting to take down the president.

In a May 14, 1983 letter written by KGB Director Viktor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov, Chebrikov stated that Kennedy had sent his friend and former Sen. John Tunney, D-Calif., to meet with the Kremlin. During the meeting, Tunney apparently delivered "themes" that Kennedy suggested ought to be used against Reagan in the 1984 election.

The KGB director's letter, which was published in Paul Kengor's 2006 book The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, stated that Kennedy had sympathy for the Soviet Union's positions, particularly on missile defense. In fact, Kennedy suggested that it was Reagan, not the Soviet Union, that was acting as the bully.

According to the KGB letter, Kennedy went so far as to suggest Soviet leaders ought to do a tour of American television interviews in order to improve Russia's image and gain sympathy for their position against the U.S.

Imagine for a moment if Trump Jr. suggested that he personally host a PR tour for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Heads would spin!

Ultimately, Democrats failed spectacularly in their attempt to topple Reagan in 1984. Kennedy managed to avoid any real admission of his involvement with the Russians, and he ultimately admitted before his death that Reagan deserved full credit for winning the Cold War.

Kennedy's compliment is of little solace to Michael Reagan, Reagan's son, who acknowledged to me today that his family has long been aware of the Democrats' efforts to take down his father. Like the younger Reagan, many remain shocked that despite being on the wrong side of history in 1984, Democrats continue to use every tool at their disposal to win elections including meeting with foreign governments during presidential campaigns.

As recently as 2016, at least one Democratic National Committee consultant appears to have colluded with the top-level Ukrainian government officials to gain opposition research on then-candidate Donald Trump.

But hey, no Democratic outrage there.

Even in the 1940s, a high-level Democrat — Henry Wallace, Secretary of Commerce and former vice president under President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II — was aggressively working with Russians against U.S. foreign policy.

In 1945, cabinet member Wallace clandestinely met with Anatoly Gorsky, a station chief of the KGB. Now-public intelligence files show that he told the Russian agent he would share secrets about the atomic bomb in order to damage President Harry Truman's foreign policy agenda and to enlist Russia's help for a small group of friends committed to fighting anti-Soviet policies.

Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis, a Yale professor who is known as "the dean of Cold War historians," has reported that Soviet intelligence documents show that Wallace was "regularly reporting to the Kremlin in 1945 and 1946 while he was in the Truman administration."

Can you imagine if today's Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was engaged in such activity? It would be outrageous."

~ Jennifer Kerns
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 11:07 PM   #339
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by khitomer View Post
"When it comes to Russian collusion during the Cold War, Democrats wrote the playbook.

To understand the Democrats' hypocrisy, one must travel back in time to the presidential election of 1984.
I mentioned earlier that there is a narrative playing in your head which compels you to deflect back to divisive responses (which you dismissed as subjective).

Your last response is objective proof of such divisive narrative, where you once again deflect to Dem vs Reps. The discussion is not whether Dems or Reps are to blame, but whether we are playing into the hands of the external enemy.

#DivisiveNarrative
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 11:19 PM   #340
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Divisive narrative.. kinda like how Hillary, who you seem to love so much, called half of America deplorable for voting Trump. Kinda like how your consistent Trump bashing doesnt raise any parallels to a 'divisive narrative' lol? Gimme a break. Pot calling the kettle black.

Also, I am not all for Trump or all for Republicans. I consider myself in favour of libertarianism, which unfortunately makes up for a relatively small minority of conservatives today.

Beside being blithely dismissive of the content of the article I posted as fostering a divisive narrative, wouldnt it be pertinent to address the significance of what it says? Supposing just for the sake of argument the events raised in it happen to be true, doesnt it show how hypocritical it is for liberals to smear the Trump administration for unproven allegations of collusion when there has been actual collusion among their ranks going all the way back to the Cold War?

Instead of making hypocritical statements about divisive narratives, perhaps you ought to dig a little deeper into the hypocrisy surrounding the history of collusion on the part of Democrats, and of the decades of direct meddling in the elections of other nations by US intelligence agencies. The world shakes its head in disbelief at the wanton indulgence and arrogance of US exceptionalism and interventionism, while within the US the liberals cry themselves hoarse over unproven allegations against Trump, completely unaware of the hypocrisy of such a witch hunt when all along their own side has been the one to have historically been guilty of collusion.


https://www.investors.com/politics/e...rump-campaign/


"Russia Collusion: If there is bipartisan agreement on anything these days, it is that Donald Trump Jr. was foolish to have met with someone who represented herself as someone with ties to the Russian government in order to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton. But the hypocritical and selective outrage of the Democrats in attacking the younger Trump is mind-boggling.

Let's put what young Donald did into perspective: He and Trump campaign official Paul Manafort met for 20 minutes with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who Trump thought could help his father's campaign by dishing dirt on his opponent. He got exactly nothing, except a lecture about U.S. sanctions against Russia. Nothing was exchanged, as far as anyone knows. A one-off meeting that led to nothing other than more anti-Trump Democratic hysteria.

Now, for the Democrats.

It's an unfortunate and well-documented truth that the Democratic Party and its allies have for years fallen all over themselves actually colluding not just with Russia, but with its predecessor, the Soviet Union, which truly was an Evil Empire and a sworn enemy of the U.S. They've neither acknowledged it nor appear to feel that it's in any way a problem. And now they act shocked — shocked! — a Republican dared to speak to a Russian.

To see the hypocrisy inherent in this requires just a few recent examples. These are by no means exhaustive; there are many, many more.

Hillary Clinton: President Trump's 2016 foe, Hillary Clinton, presented her Russian counterpart with a famous gag "reset button." It was supposed to represent a new era in U.S.-Russian ties. Instead, it was a transparent and pathetically weak attempt to appease Russia, which proceeded to annex the Crimea and parts of Ukraine during her tenure as secretary of state. But her ties to the Russians and collusion with them and other questionable nations went far deeper and was far more troubling than Donald Jr.'s ever was.

Last January, Politico reported that the Democratic National Committee, acting on behalf of Hillary, actually contacted officials in the corrupt government of the Ukraine seeking opposition research against Trump. "Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office," Politico said. "They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors."

Is that not collusion? By the way, Ukrainian-supplied information about Manafort meeting with Russian officials led to him being fired by Trump. So the DNC actually used the information.

OK, but what about Russia? The media did very little due diligence on reports of Hillary's collusion with Russia. As we reported in May, not only did Bill Clinton get $500,000 in 2010 for giving a speech in Moscow, paid for by a company with ties to Russian intelligence, but he did so while Hillary was the nation's top diplomat.

We noted the overwhelming stench of collusion between the Clintons and Russia, noting that Viktor Vekselberg, a "Putin confidant," and other Putin cronies gave money to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton charity also took in millions from Uranium One, which was sold to the Russian government in 2010. With its acquisition, Russia gained control of 20% of the U.S.' uranium deposits. Hillary's State Department approved the sale.

John Podesta: Hillary's campaign manager didn't disclose during the campaign that he had received 75,000 shares of stock from Joule Unlimited, which was financed by the Kremlin. Podesta served as a director of the company from 2010 to 2014, when he joined the Obama White House. He hid the holdings from public scrutiny by transferring them to a shell company called Leonidio Holdings, that he incorporated a mere week and a half before taking a post in the White House.

Oh, and don't forget Tony Podesta, John's brother, who was paid $24 million in fees as a lobbyist in 2016, much of it from foreign governments. He lobbied for Sberbank, a Russian financial firm, that was trying to get U.S. sanctions removed that had been imposed after Russia took the Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

President Obama: Famously, President Obama met with then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a protege of Vladimir Putin, at a 2012 conference in Seoul. In comments he thought weren't being picked up by a microphone, Obama said he needed time, "particularly with missile defense," until he was in a stronger political position.

Here's the ensuing conversation. You can decide whether it amounts to collusion.

Medvedev: "I understand your message about space."

Obama: "This is my last election. … After my election I have more flexibility."

Medvedev: "I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

And, of course, there was the fact that Obama did virtually nothing as Putin ransacked the Crimea, threatened Poland and the Baltic nations, while Obama himself outsourced the fight against ISIS to Russia, leading to the mass murder of civilians there. This too is collusion, the inevitable result of someone who cravenly promised "flexibility" to a dictator.

DNC/Russia: The DNC used disinformation from a highly questionable source linked to the Russians to discredit Trump last year. Former British spy Christopher Steele produced a dossier containing lots of salacious charges against Trump, including some obscene in nature. Steele handed the dossier over, but only after being paid by Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm that was itself being paid by a Hillary Clinton supporter.

As the Washington Times' Rowan Scarborough wrote this week: "Mr. Steele makes clear that his unproven charges came almost exclusively from sources linked to the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He identified his sources as "a senior Russian Ministry figure,' a former 'top level Russian intelligence officer active inside the Kremlin,' a 'senior Kremlin official,' and a 'senior Russian government official.' "

And the Democrats paid for this information, and then circulated it.

Russia/Green Groups: In the last election, Hillary Clinton made special cause with left-wing green groups, since she had plainly stated her intent to take down the fossil fuel industry — and along with it, American industry and its way of life — a long-cherished goal of the far-left green movement. Now, according to House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, it turns out that the green groups were working in collusion with — you guessed it — Russia.

As Smith told the Wall Street Journal, "If you connect the dots, it is clear that Russia is funding U.S. environmental groups in an effort to suppress our domestic oil and gas industry, specifically hydraulic fracking. They have established an elaborate scheme that funnels money through shell companies in Bermuda. This scheme may violate federal law and certainly distorts the U.S. energy market. The American people deserve to know the truth and I am confident (Treasury) Secretary (Steve) Mnuchin will investigate the allegations."

Tens of millions of dollars funneled to green groups to attack the U.S. energy industry, on behalf of Russia and global warming.

The fact is, the Democratic Party and their allies on the left are up to their necks in real, actual, demonstrable and irrefutable collusion with the Russians and their dictatorial former-KGB leader, Vladimir Putin. With a few notable exceptions, the mainstream media have all but ignored this, in favor of hyperventilating over a nothingburger meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who was, by the way, allowed into the U.S. on a special visa by none other than Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Democrats and the left didn't just collude with Russia; they embraced them, and show no shame in having done so."

Last edited by khitomer; 02-21-2018 at 10:40 AM.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 11:39 PM   #341
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
You still don't get it. I don't care what Dems are saying about collusion. Just because I find Trump seriously flawed doesn't mean I agree with everything the Dems say and do, or that I would defend the Dems simply because I find fault with Reps.

You probably haven't even noticed that I have not once brought up the topic of collusion. Russian meddling is proven, collusion is not. So it makes sense not to jump to any assumption about collusion.
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 11:43 PM   #342
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Then instead of Trump, blame Dems over collusion. They are the ones with a history of actual collusion, while Trump, however flawed his personality may be, is just the fall guy for their bitterness over losing. And once again, they lost mostly as a result of their own drawbacks. If you think a handful of Russian trolls using social media to belittle Hillary lost her the election, that is rather delusional.

It seems to me that for the most part, its you who doesnt get it.

Dems cant face the fact that so much of America doesnt buy their cultural Marxist social engineering agenda. And they cant face the fact that a human caricature like Trump could have taken away the 8 years of hero worship and adulation of Obama as being a perfect precursor to cementing their 'progressive' identity politics with the first woman president.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 11:48 PM   #343
luvpeacejoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by khitomer View Post
Then instead of Trump, blame Dems over collusion. They are the ones with a history of actual collusion, while Trump, however flawed his personality may be, is just the fall guy for their bitterness over losing. And once again, they lost mostly as a result of their own drawbacks. If you think a handful of Russian trolls using social media to belittle Hillary lost her the election, that is rather delusional.

It seems to me that for the most part, its you who doesnt get it.
#DivisiveNarrative
luvpeacejoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 11:52 PM   #344
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Youre pretty transparent.

Pretending like your anti-Trump vitriol isnt an example of a divisive narrative, while my calling out Dems over their history of collusion is divisive for the sake of being divisive. So obviously hypocritical of you.. smh.

#BlatantHypocrisy

Last edited by khitomer; 02-21-2018 at 12:25 AM.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 01:58 AM   #345
srz
Tinfoil Hat Guy
 
srz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 152
While I've addressed many of Trump's flaws here in another thread, the main issue at hand, is not these personality flaws, but the very real prospect he may had prior deals connected to Putin/Russian banks or compromised by these deals. One indicator is he has not shown his tax returns. His public known business failures have made some financial experts believe he may have resorted to taking loans from one of the Russian/related banks that lead back to Putin's laundered state funds.

Mueller is taking cautious steps and exposing Russian interference by way of Russian trolls, but only in the wider picture of Trump's connection with Russia. Trump's or Republican's weak argument to discredit him earlier with some prior bias note shows a desperate attempt to try to block his investigation. Given Trump's refusal to show his tax returns, there is reason to believe he is hiding something and this may be their only card to play. Take out the person in charge of investigating you by any means necessary, while your own much bigger issues are pushed aside. This is from Putin's playbook when he was being investigated for his initial state funds grab, which he then leveraged to gain complete power.

Putin's Hidden Treasure -There is a 2014 French documentary about how Putin got to secure his power and increase his vast fortune: money laundering of state funds and iron-fisted henchmen. He now is sort of trapped in his position, and must maintain power, lest he will be exposed for his crimes and punished -the documentary contends. Common scheme employed is using a legit state project (national food exports, Sochi Olympics related construction, etc) as a cover budget to charge many times over for what the project requires, and pocketing the rest. i.e money laundering.

While it's true establishment backed Dems or Republicans may not be ideal candidates, just being an outsider and a straight talker narcissist is also not sufficient enough or the better option, especially if they may be compromised and in the pocket of Putin.. Unless your top priority is countering a perceived "cultural Marxist social engineering agenda", you will over look such things. I found this to be an exaggeration of one factor influencing "progressive" politics. In comparison to Trump or Putin (for that matter) an upstanding morally sound guy like Sanders is instead seen as the ultimate bad guy pushing the "Marxist-socialist agenda."

Given Trump's prior catastrophic endeavors in major business ventures, it should not be surprising to see a massive financial collapse of the United States under Trump in the near future. This could push the world closer to living under conditions Master predicted would happen and require people to live more self sufficiently. If this is what we want to happen earlier rather than later, Trump is your candidate.

Last edited by srz; 02-21-2018 at 02:26 AM.
srz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 02:10 AM   #346
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Upstanding morally sound guy who pushes Marxist socialism (not just 'Democratic socialism', hes admitted being labelled a [Marxist] socialist isnt an insult), and who defrauds the IRS. Yeah, a real model.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 07:05 AM   #347
mccoy
supernal user
 
mccoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Italy, Europe
Posts: 7,067
A scientific experiment led by professor Roland Griffiths on psychedelic drugs, specifically psylocibin, a compound contained in some mushrooms specieses, are being led by synthetizing the natural compound and administering it in rigorously controlled dosages.

This is discussed in one of the excellent Rhonda Patrick podcasts and Youtube vids. That gives a scientific background to halucinogens and their effects.
Knowledge will hopefully guide our choices in such a way to avoid bad decisions and possible detrimental effects.


__________________
This world is ruled by invisibilities or ghosts: God the Father , Christ Consciousness, the seven Spirits before the throne of God; and Satan and his legion of evil powers - Paramhansa Yogananda, Man's Eternal Quest.
mccoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 07:35 AM   #348
yogagirl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: France
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by mccoy View Post
A scientific experiment led by professor Roland Griffiths on psychedelic drugs, specifically psylocibin, a compound contained in some mushrooms specieses, are being led by synthetizing the natural compound and administering it in rigorously controlled dosages.

This is discussed in one of the excellent Rhonda Patrick podcasts and Youtube vids. That gives a scientific background to halucinogens and their effects.
Knowledge will hopefully guide our choices in such a way to avoid bad decisions and possible detrimental effects.


Oh!...meditation increases the grey matter in the brain! There's hope for me yet!!

Last edited by yogagirl; 02-21-2018 at 10:46 AM.
yogagirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 10:27 AM   #349
Stream
Victory to Spirit!
 
Stream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,485
Hillary Clinton and fracking. In the US she portrays herself as a Democrat, but on the world stage she is a neocon, right up there with the likes of Dick Cheney. (does either of them have a conscience?).

America is a big and beautiful country, and most Americans don't look too far beyond its borders. (Good luck finding an American who can point out Crimea on the world map). So there is no real interest in the global politics that someone like Clinton brings to the table. Therefore, it goes unnoticed that Clinton is involved in selling out America to a global elite that is not tied to any nation. Banks and corporations are without nationality. This elite can sense the coming world civilization, or 'new world order', and wants to shape and control it. It's a game to them. Human lives mean nothing on this chess board.

They do own the mainstream media. I recall the 24/7 coverage of Fukushima. A huge story. Scientists were brought in, every detail was examined, all the risks and potential outcomes discussed. The thought came to me, which I mentioned to the person next to me watching the broadcast, that the coverage would stop the very next day. From around the clock to next to nothing. The coverage did stop the next day. From the biggest story Fukushima was suddenly a non-story. How could that happen when an enormous crisis was unfolding before our eyes? Because the story was harming the interests of the nuclear power industry.

If corporate interests have that kind of power over what is news and what is not, why would one trust anything, -anything at all-, that is 'approved' to be news? Its not 'fake news' as Trump alleges. It's propaganda; a means to program the people. Whenever a nefarious story, such as Russian interference in the US elections, is continuously floated, the point is not the story itself, but the motive behind its presentation. Once we ask those type of questions, gradually a picture forms of how it all ties together. Otherwise it will just be bits and pieces of information without an underlying context. Once the context is seen, then it is often possible to predict the next move; just as on a chess board.

As long as Trump is not in the petrodollar camp, the mainstream media will attack his credibility. If America succeeds in becoming a manufacturing nation again, the financial powers lose their grip over America. They're invested in control through money. If America breaks free from that, their power is gone. If America falls...

The world is in a terrible battle against the forces of darkness, and in that battle things are often not what they seem. The credo of the Mossad, for instance, is 'by way of deception thou shalt do war'. A far cry from the old days of honor and righteousness. Someone like Nelson Mandela, a hero to many, had great respect for Gaddafi. Libya was an example in democracy. Yet Hillary Clinton joked about the murder of Gaddafi. She's as dangerous a psychopath as I've seen on the American political stage. The world may have been spared great harm, such as WWIII, from her non-election.
__________________
"Softer than a flower where kindness is concerned,
stronger than the thunder where principles are at stake."
- PY

"The darkness of maya is silently approaching. Let us hie homeward within." - Swami Sri Yukteswar
Stream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 11:01 AM   #350
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Sad but true. I would just point out that Democrats and Neocons are not all that dissimilar in terms of being proponents (Neocons at least in practice if not in theory) of big government and globalism. There is nothing in liberal politics that would give the impression the Dems arent all for whatever serves their own interests first and foremost, even if it goes against their stated values such as giving a damn about the environment. It always comes down to them simply using these narratives as political talking points to solicit votes, and to further entrench division and unrest, all under the pretence of wanting to foster social cohesion. But fomenting the division along 'social justice' narratives is what actually drives the voter base. Hillary flip-flopping on gay marriage over the course of her career, finally coming to a concrete 'pro' position once she realized the tide had turned in majority favour of it, is the perfect example. 'The Swamp' consists predominantly of such self-interested populists whose sole aim in life is to get into power and cement themselves and their party in it once there (and to get rich while doing it). Petrodollar is the unfortunate result of the means they have enacted to grow their personal wealth while trying to stave off the impending financial doomsday of a grossly inflated fiat currency.









Last edited by khitomer; 02-21-2018 at 03:11 PM.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 03:20 AM   #351
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:11 PM   #352
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:03 AM   #353
srz
Tinfoil Hat Guy
 
srz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 152


With "conservatives" in power in all phases of government as the speaker Ben Shapiro gleefully states, it's not a question if the economy will collapse, but when.

On the offensive to undo rigged systems. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has redrawn the map of the state's congressional districts, overturning a Republican gerrymander that's been used in the past three congressional elections.

My local government's newly elected governor won't bend over for Trump instead undo previous Republican agendas blocking liberties and everything that is approved by congress.

"PC culture" has more to do with workplace/business related lawsuits than anything. Women pushing for equal pay, one core feminist or "progressive" aspect, has to do with the decimation of a middle class or economic gap Republican policies help create. Neither of these stemming from "marxist" or Frankfurt school philosophy takeover of western society.

"Leftists" lol If anyone claims there's no such thing as a political spectrum, how can there be a group labeled leftists?

Growing list of Mueller indictments in the investigation. Trump's associates taking plea deals. My guess if it gets to close to Trump, he'll either quit first or fire Mueller. Then he'll quit later when faced with obstruction of justice, going out complaining in tweets like a whiny lil bitch how unfairly he's treated.

Millennials and public are aware of the fake news propaganda efforts online. They are dealing with it and more prepared in the future. FB has taken constructive steps. Reddit contains the cesspool of Russian trolls and delusional Trump supporters in their own circle jerk subreddit (who fell for things like Pizzagate, illegals voting, building a wall, blinded by their animosity for any "leftist" candidate) Moderate political view holders don't fall for the bs.

‘r/The_Donald’ — Reddit’s Delusional Cesspool of Trump Fanaticism

Last edited by srz; Today at 01:51 AM.
srz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:01 AM   #354
khitomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 420
Still fumbling around in a confused state when it comes to politics I see.

Never mind, one day it might dawn on you.

Lol.. if you think conservatives are going to be responsible for an economic collapse 'when' it happens, you clearly know next to nothing about the causes going back decades that are snowballing toward hyper-inflation and which are the result of bipartisan blunders.

I think you need some more aluminium foil for your hats. The current one isnt working too well.

As for SCOTUS wait till a couple of these fossils keel over on Trump's watch and see two conservative judges appointed for the next however many decades.

Last edited by khitomer; Today at 09:09 AM.
khitomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.