Discussion: Relations with Russia

[Axl Van Sixx]

Nah, I'm sorry @MaceB. You operate from the presumption that anything is legit if it's reported by The New York Times. Believe it or not, the poor reporting of the NYT seems motivated out of a desire to make the president look good—even when that president is Trump—since that's been the general approach of their reporting for many decades.

Your faith in the NYT as an untouchable source of solid facts is sadly belied by the evidence of many years in which the paper acted as the favoured propaganda organ of the U.S. state, which continues to this day.

 

[Holy Slapper]

I blame The New York Times more than Judith Miller. The paper echoed her false reporting because of their institutional role as a bulwark of U.S. imperialism.

Regarding the hacking of WikiLeaks, I have to ask a question: the information conveyed by WikiLeaks was true, was it not? Hillary Clinton gave speeches to big banks. Why should I be angry at anyone who provided me with true and accurate information?

I'm sorry but do you actually think that was THE point in the hacking??? Wikileaks released info on Clinton very close to elections day, enough to cause Comey do something stupid. It cause a dip in her polls. Even FiveThirtyEight has confirmed the dip. So once again, Russia played a MAJOR role in the elections. If you thing giving speeches to big banks was the issue then....

 

[MaceB]

Nah, I'm sorry @MaceB. You operate from the presumption that anything is legit if it's reported by The New York Times. Believe it or not, the poor reporting of the NYT seems motivated out of a desire to make the president look good—even when that president is Trump—since that's been the general approach of their reporting for many decades.

Your faith in the NYT as an untouchable source of solid facts is sadly belied by the evidence of many years in which the paper acted as the favoured propaganda organ of the U.S. state, which continues to this day.

I like how you’re now bowing out and arguing that you shouldn’t have to debate the facts. They found financial docs supporting the reporting, and the White House isn’t disputing that yes - Russia did this.

 

[Holy Slapper]

Nah, I'm sorry @MaceB. You operate from the presumption that anything is legit if it's reported by The New York Times. Believe it or not, the poor reporting of the NYT seems motivated out of a desire to make the president look good—even when that president is Trump—since that's been the general approach of their reporting for many decades.

Your faith in the NYT as an untouchable source of solid facts is sadly belied by the evidence of many years in which the paper acted as the favoured propaganda organ of the U.S. state, which continues to this day.

I'm beginning think you live this bubble where the NYT is FAKE NEWS!, essentially repeating the lie Trump has been telling for ages. So let me just inform you from the reality outside of your bubble, both the Washington Post and New York Times are viewed very favorably and considered trustworthy even outside the US. You can choose to exist in your bubble and keep repeating that, but unlike Trump fans, repeating a lie doesn't work in the real world/outside the US. And yes, that is a shot at the general public in the US.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I'm sorry but do you actually think that was THE point in the hacking??? Wikileaks released info on Clinton very close to elections day, enough to cause Comey do something stupid. It cause a dip in her polls. Even FiveThirtyEight has confirmed the dip. So once again, Russia played a MAJOR role in the elections. If you thing giving speeches to big banks was the issue then....

You mean Wikileaks reporting true statements that Clinton actually made? Gosh, I guess we should blame Wikileaks, not Clinton for making those statements in the first place.

I like how you’re now bowing out and Arguing that you shouldn’t have to debate the facts. They found financial docs supporting the reporting, and the White House isn’t disputing that yes - Russia did this.

Cool, so you ignored the last several posts I made and are just concluding that since the NYT reported it, clearly it's true. You're the one who's ignoring the facts. Anything to avoid thinking that the Democratic Party might have some obligation to American voters to put forward a platform other than "we're not Trump".

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I'm beginning think you live this bubble where the NYT is FAKE NEWS!, essentially repeating the lie Trump has been telling for ages. So let me just inform you from the reality outside of your bubble, both the Washington Post and New York Times are viewed very favorably and considered trustworthy even outside the US. You can choose to exist in your bubble and keep repeating that, but unlike Trump fans, repeating a lie doesn't work in the real world/outside the US. And yes, that is a shot at the general public in the US.

Dude, if you think the NYT and WP are unimpeachable reporting, I don't know what to tell you. The NYT is the most trusted organ of the American ruling class and acts as a stenographer for the claims of any government agencies. The WP is owned by Jeff Bezos and reports everything from the perspective of the ruling oligarchs such as Bezos. You're incredibly naive if you think these newspapers won't be influenced by their owners.

 

[Holy Slapper]

Dude, if you think the NYT and WP are unimpeachable reporting, I don't know what to tell you. The NYT is the most trusted organ of the American ruling class and acts as a stenographer for the claims of any government agencies. The WP is owned by Jeff Bezos and reports everything from the perspective of the ruling oligarchs such as Bezos. You're incredibly naive if you think these newspapers won't be influenced by their owners.

No one's saying that. No media is. Every one makes mistakes. It doesn't reduce their credibility.

US doesn't have oligarchs. Russia and Ukraine have oligarchs. I don't care what Bernie Sanders says about it. He's wrong.

 

[MaceB]

Cool, so you ignored the last several posts I made and are just concluding that since the NYT reported it, clearly it's true. You're the one who's ignoring the facts. Anything to avoid thinking that the Democratic Party might have some obligation to American voters to put forward a platform other than "we're not Trump".

you have no right to talk about responding to args, since you ignore all of mine and now are straight up saying you’ll ignore anything coming from NYT.

As I’ve been saying, here’s another source that corroborates the NYT reporting.

How strong is the case that Russia paid the Taliban to kill Americans?

“
McEnany's comments are consistent with what multiple officials told NBC News: that there is intelligence about Russians' offering a bounty to kill Americans but that officials disagree about the implications and significance of the plot.

Two senior administration officials said the U.S. received "raw intelligence based on limited sourcing" suggesting that Russia was offering cash for deaths of U.S. troops and coalition forces in Afghanistan.”

and again.... financial docs, and whitehouse isn’t denying it... only that they were briefed on it.

 

[MaceB]

Dude, if you think the NYT and WP are unimpeachable reporting, I don't know what to tell you. The NYT is the most trusted organ of the American ruling class and acts as a stenographer for the claims of any government agencies. The WP is owned by Jeff Bezos and reports everything from the perspective of the ruling oligarchs such as Bezos. You're incredibly naive if you think these newspapers won't be influenced by their owners.

This reads like conservative satire. Yeah..... bezos. that’s it. He’s the one coordinating This world wide conspiracy to fabricate reporting against the president. Oye.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

you have no right to talk about responding to args, since you ignore all of mine and now are straight up saying you’ll ignore anything coming from NYT.

As I’ve been saying, here’s another source that corroborates the NYT reporting.

How strong is the case that Russia paid the Taliban to kill Americans?

“
McEnany's comments are consistent with what multiple officials told NBC News: that there is intelligence about Russians' offering a bounty to kill Americans but that officials disagree about the implications and significance of the plot.

Two senior administration officials said the U.S. received "raw intelligence based on limited sourcing" suggesting that Russia was offering cash for deaths of U.S. troops and coalition forces in Afghanistan.”

and again.... financial docs, and whitehouse isn’t denying it... only that they were briefed on it.

OK, so you're offering me an article in which even U.S. intelligence admits that the claim is disputed. And this is the sum total of your unimpeachable evidence?

I think the real issue here is your claim that Russia is an "enemy" of the U.S. at all. I don't have a problem with ordinary Russian civilians. Do you? What is the point of encouraging this constant demonization of Russia? Other than feeding the military-industrial complex that constantly requires an "enemy" to justify ever-expanding billion-dollar "defense" contracts.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

This reads like conservative satire. Yeah..... bezos. that’s it. He’s the one coordinating This world wide conspiracy to fabricate reporting against the president. Oye.

Wow, you're right. The owners of the nation's leading newspapers have no influence whatsover on their content. Sorry I doubted you, Mace.

 

[MaceB]

OK, so you're offering me an article in which even U.S. intelligence admits that the claim is disputed. And this is the sum total of your unimpeachable evidence?

I think the real issue here is your claim that Russia is an "enemy" of the U.S. at all. I don't have a problem with ordinary Russian civilians. Do you? What is the point of encouraging this constant demonization of Russia? Other than feeding the military-industrial complex that constantly requires an "enemy" to justify ever-expanding billion-dollar "defense" contracts.

ive offered 3 articles in total, all saying the same thing.

also.... financial docs.

also... that the whitehouse itself isn’t disputing the raw intelligence.

You just want to keep pretending though, so you like to reset after every post and play stupid.

 

[MaceB]

Wow, you're right. The owners of the nation's leading newspapers have no influence whatsover on their content. Sorry I doubted you, Mace.

do you have any evidence that they do? And you’d have to explain why all the other credible journals are finding Similar details. Also... this is a straw man. I now have to argue that Bezos has no influence whatsoever in order to prove that WaPo has credibility? ..... right. Degree matters, unfortunately. Cute argument though.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

ive offered 3 articles in total, all saying the same thing.

also.... financial docs.

also... that the whitehouse itself isn’t disputing the raw intelligence.

You just want to pretending though, so you like to reset after every post and play stupid.

No, you just have your opinion and you will resist any evidence to the contrary.

I don't even think we're disagreeing here. I absolutely agree that Trump is corrupt. Does he have any links to Russia? Probably. But I feel like you're turning a mountain out of a molehill here in positing Trump as uniquely disruptive to American society. The issue is that all American presidents have been the conduit for evil policies that have oppressed millions of people.

 

[MaceB]

No, you just have your opinion and you will resist any evidence to the contrary.

I don't even think we're disagreeing here. I absolutely agree that Trump is corrupt. Does he have any links to Russia? Probably. But I feel like you're turning a mountain out of a molehill here in positing Trump as uniquely disruptive to American society. The issue is that all American presidents have been the conduit for evil policies that have oppressed millions of people.

Now you’re just a moving target. I’m arguing that Russia paid terrorists to target Americans, and the president did nothing. This is corroborated by financial docs, and other outlets reporting, and the whitehouse’ own admission.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Now you’re just a moving target. I’m arguing that Russia paid terrorists to target Americans, and the president did nothing. This is corroborated by financial docs, and other outlets reporting, and the whitehouse’ own admission.

You want to stop American soldiers being killed in Afghanistan? How about removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan? Problem solved.

 

[MaceB]

You want to stop American soldiers being killed in Afghanistan? How about removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan? Problem solved.

I agree we should responsibly exit Afghanistan. That has nothing to do with this conversation though. You seem hell bent on taking the conversation away from Trumps failings right now. Since your last arg fell apart due to lack of evidence, you want to steer the conversation to easier ground.

that’s fine. But still, Russia paid terrorists to target Americans. The president knew, but he didn’t do anything about it. That is extremely upsetting. Trump is our biggest national threat right now, and his continued actions of giving Russia a pass are beyond unacceptable at this point.

 

[Holy Slapper]

You want to stop American soldiers being killed in Afghanistan? How about removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan? Problem solved.

Yeah, just hand it over to Taliban and **** the rest of Aghanistan. Mission accomplished again!

 

[Holy Slapper]

OK, so you're offering me an article in which even U.S. intelligence admits that the claim is disputed. And this is the sum total of your unimpeachable evidence?

I think the real issue here is your claim that Russia is an "enemy" of the U.S. at all. I don't have a problem with ordinary Russian civilians. Do you? What is the point of encouraging this constant demonization of Russia? Other than feeding the military-industrial complex that constantly requires an "enemy" to justify ever-expanding billion-dollar "defense" contracts.

Credible enough to be verified to multiple British medias by British security officials.

Also this: Russia did pay extremists to attack US soldiers, Taliban sources say - Business Insider

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

The U.S. has been in Afghanistan for 19 years. You guys can say whatever you want to, but the point is that ordinary Americans who have been dying for the last two decades have no interest in Afghanistan or the government that rules there. The future of Afghanistan should be the choice of the Afghan people.

 

[Holy Slapper]

The U.S. has been in Afghanistan for 19 years. You guys can say whatever you want to, but the point is that ordinary Americans who have been dying for the last two decades have no interest in Afghanistan or the government that rules there. The future of Afghanistan should be the choice of the Afghan people.

You started it, you finish it. Otherwise, you prove every negative stereotype the world holds of Americans to be true, thus increasing the hatred. One would think Americans would have learned already that the model where something happens somewhere in the world, not necessarily to America, America bombs a country, sends troops, leaves things in more often a bigger cluster****, thinks enough is done and expects nothing worse will happen. Rinse & repeat. In short, it will backfire in the long term and short term. You start **** up, you better finish it.

 

[MaceB]

I agree that we should responsibly get out of Afghanistan. It's just not what we've been talking about the past few pages.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

You started it, you finish it. Otherwise, you prove every negative stereotype the world holds of Americans to be true, thus increasing the hatred. One would think Americans would have learned already that the model where something happens somewhere in the world, not necessarily to America, America bombs a country, sends troops, leaves things in more often a bigger cluster****, thinks enough is done and expects nothing worse will happen. Rinse & repeat. In short, it will backfire in the long term and short term. You start **** up, you better finish it.

And how's that been going? The U.S. has been trying to "finish" the war in Afghanistan for almost two decades now. What do you think will happen if they stay even longer? Probably the same thing that's been happening for the last 19 years: they will keep losing and innocent people will keep dying. Funnily enough, people don't react too well to a foreign army occupying their country, least of all Afghans. There's a reason they call Afghanistan the "graveyard of empires".

The U.S. will not withdraw from Afghanistan because 1) no president wants to be the one to admit this obvious defeat, and that all that blood and treasure was spent for nothing; and 2) endless war helps keep "defense" spending high. It's easy enough for you guys to say that U.S. troops should stay in Afghanistan endlessly. You're not the ones fighting and dying over there.

And to take this back to Russia, it's interesting that the NYT's evidence-free claim about "Russian bounties" came up just as Trump was talking about reducing the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Germany. Glenn Greenwald wrote a good article about how Democrats worked with Liz Cheney to shut down any such move:

Just as she did with Afghanistan, Congresswoman Cheney, to oppose this troop removal from Germany, cited — along with her Democratic Committee colleagues — the threat of Russia, now the all-purpose rationale for continuing endless U.S. imperialism and war, just as it was during the first Cold War

The bottom line is that you believe the NYT's baseless claims about "Russian bounties" even when the paper itself has started to distance itself from its own reporting. I don't. And personally, I think it's sad that people are still so credulous that they will accept a NYT article based entirely off the claims of anonymous officials. It's as if Judith Miller and her bogus stories about Iraqi WMDs have been wiped completely from historical memory. No wonder Gore Vidal talked about the "United States of Amnesia".

 

[Holy Slapper]

The bottom line is that you believe the NYT's baseless claims about "Russian bounties" even when the paper itself has started to distance itself from its own reporting. I don't. And personally, I think it's sad that people are still so credulous that they will accept a NYT article based entirely off the claims of anonymous officials. It's as if Judith Miller and her bogus stories about Iraqi WMDs have been wiped completely from historical memory. No wonder Gore Vidal talked about the "United States of Amnesia".

Again, this has been confirmed to multiple British medias by British security forces and and even went to the House Of Commons. That would not be the case if it was baseless. I don't even need NYT articles to know Russia's doing it because it's their MO. And let me guess, you didn't even bother to read the Business Insider article?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I think there's an issue with how Russia Today on cable and online has colored quite a few Progressives.

There really is a strange reflex to say stuff that sounds like it's running interference for Putin.