Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

But hey, Clinton reached almost Romney levels of rhetoric towards Russia, I mean definitely would have started a war, so really she's just as bad as Trump.  (I am mocking the common false equivalency with sarcasm)

TBH this is something we do owe Romney an apology over - he realized the threat of Russia earlier than most people. Too bad his party ended up getting a Russian stooge elected just four years later

[misko27]

Today I remembered something that might explain Trump a bit. Tom Plinkett of Tammany Hall, a man with a very "unique" view of politics, died in 1924. But before then, he published a book after losing office in 1904, called "Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics." He was a Tammany Man, and I think that maybe there is some worth in remembering how Tammany operated, and why they won votes. I find Tammany Hall very interesting for reasons unrelated to Trump, but a section on "Honest Graft" which I had read before, but caught my eye again as the times have shone a new light on them:

Everybody is talkin' these days about Tammany men growin' rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin' the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There's all the difference in the world between the two. There's an honest graft, and I'm an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin': 'I seen my opportunities and I took 'em.'

Just let me explain by examples. My party's in power in the city, and it's going to undertake a lot of public improvements. Well, I'm tipped off, say, that they're going to lay out a new park at a certain place.

I see my opportunity and I take it. I go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared particular for.

Ain't it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of course, it is. Well, that's honest graft and I'm lookin' for it every day in the year. I will tell you frankly that I've got a good lot of it, too.

But hey, Clinton reached almost Romney levels of rhetoric towards Russia, I mean definitely would have started a war, so really she's just as bad as Trump.  (I am mocking the common false equivalency with sarcasm)

TBH this is something we do owe Romney an apology over - he realized the threat of Russia earlier than most people. Too bad his party ended up getting a Russian stooge elected just four years later

What's really bothersome is back during the invasions in Ukraine, I saw conservatives here and there saying "What's that? Russian invasion you say? It looks like Romney was right then, huh?" and now I don't hear that at all. The fact that people said that at the time annoyed me, but now the fact that they've stopped leaves me deeply disturbed.

[smjjames]

I don't remember anybody saying that Romney's focus in Russia would lead to war, but yeah, his foresight was excellent here. In hindsight, it was less 'forget about ISIS and focus on Russia' than 'We need to pay attention to Russia, we cannot take our eyes off of Russia.' I don't think he ever explained why we needed to pay attention to Russia at the time.

He was also rather warhawky at a time when wearyness of the war was still pretty significant.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Qui bono

[TheBiggerFish]

It's still not December 19th...

[Reelya]

This leap of circular logic especially of his: ""I do think it's critical to answer the question that I posed: If you think the Russians did this, then why did they leave fingerprints?""

Clearly if you don't know who did something therefore it must have been the Russians then.

Similar logic: LW was saying the Russians manipulated American media during the USSR times, and the lack of any evidence whatsoever of that happening just proves what masters of subterfuge they were. Except Stalin was around 70 years ago when all records were on paper, we have plenty of evidence of other subterfuge they were conducting, none of that seems to be targeted at US media, and plenty of stuff was exposed when KGB records were opened up by Gorbachev. Yet no known Soviet infiltrations of media organizations have surfaced.

The soviets targeted what they saw as the root of political power: the state apparatus, which allows you to dictate what's in the media. Whereas in a democracy, it's the media which allows you to dictate state power, so the modern Russians have different priorities.

[smjjames]

This leap of circular logic especially of his: ""I do think it's critical to answer the question that I posed: If you think the Russians did this, then why did they leave fingerprints?""

Clearly if you don't know who did something therefore it must have been Obama then.

Similar logic: LW was saying the Russians manipulated American media during the USSR times, and the lack of any evidence whatsoever of that happening just proves what masters of subterfuge they were. Except Stalin was around 70 years ago when all records were on paper, we have plenty of evidence of other subterfuge they were conducting, none of that seems to be targeted at US media, and plenty of stuff was exposed when KGB records were opened up by Gorbachev. Yet no known Soviet infiltrations of media organizations have surfaced.

The soviets targeted what they saw as the root of political power: the state apparatus, which allows you to dictate what's in the media. Whereas in a democracy, it's the media which allows you to dictate state power, so the modern Russians have different priorities.

FIFY because that's the exact same logic that Bolton is using, and I suppose it's just a coincidence that there are all these other Russian connections?

[Reelya]

Typical Democrats, they just want to blame everything on Russia. They're up to their same old tricks ...

... except "blaming everything on Russia" has never been a liberal thing - in fact liberals were always blamed for being in cahoots with Russia. So now, when there's a smoking gun of stuff conservatives have said for years, why is it merely nonsense pushed by liberals?

EDIT: New Secretary of State getting tough with Putin during the signing of a deal between his oil company and a Russian state-owned oil firm:

[smjjames]

You.. um... is that a rhetorical question?

There really aren't very many people who are claiming that liberals are behind the whole thing, let alone some conspiracy junk.

edit: Trump hasn't actually made the appointment yet, it's just rumors at this point, possibly as an idea float to gauge public reaction, no idea.

[Reelya]

They're saying the democrats are making up the Russian links is what I'm saying. For years the Conservatives attacked the Democrats as being in cahoots with commies, now when some real evidence of Russian no-good stuff comes out, they're claiming it's Democrat anti-Russian hysteria.

When they're promoting Rex Tillerson, a guy who was given the Order of Friendship from the Kremlin to be the head of the State Department, I'm kind of wondering where all those people bleating about the New World Order are? It's sort of the thing you should be triggered by, not environmental protection laws and the existence of national parks:
http://www.texemarrs.com/061997/national_parks_belong_to_un.htm

Can you imagine the hysteria if any Democrat who was proposed to set foot anywhere near the White House had a Russia Order of Friendship medal?

[smjjames]

They're saying the democrats are making up the Russian links is what I'm saying. For years the Conservatives attacked the Democrats as being in cahoots with commies, now when some real evidence of Russian no-good stuff comes out, they're claiming it's Democrat anti-Russian hysteria.

I know they've been saying that there isn't exactly proof or no solid for sure proof that Russia is behind it and just hedging in general, but AFAIK, Bolton is the only one to go so far as to imply it was some sort of false flag operation by the Obama adminstration. Other than Bolton, nobody is saying that it's some conspiracy by liberals, that's largely what I was WTFing at.

In fact, there's a bipartisan group of Senators calling for a closer look into the whole thing.

[Reelya]

But I didn't say anything like that. I said it's blamed as anti-Russian hysteria by the Democrats. Do I have to spell the same thing out again:

- Conservatives traditionally blame liberals as being a commie front

- Now real evidence of Russian nefarious doings is appearing

- But that's clearly just liberal paranoia, with conservatives acting like they're baffled that you'd think the Russians would ever try to manipulate America.

[smjjames]

They're saying the democrats are making up the Russian links is what I'm saying. For years the Conservatives attacked the Democrats as being in cahoots with commies, now when some real evidence of Russian no-good stuff comes out, they're claiming it's Democrat anti-Russian hysteria.

When they're promoting Rex Tillerson, a guy who was given the Order of Friendship from the Kremlin to be the head of the State Department, I'm kind of wondering where all those people bleating about the New World Order are? It's sort of the thing you should be triggered by, not environmental protection laws and the existence of national parks:
http://www.texemarrs.com/061997/national_parks_belong_to_un.htm

Can you imagine the hysteria if any Democrat who was proposed to set foot anywhere near the White House had a Russia Order of Friendship medal?

Or anybody with that during the Cold War.

As far as Tillerson goes, the Democrats are already planning on metaphorically eviscerating him over his time as Exxon CEO and to make the confirmation of him as difficult as possible, and there's already some Republicans skeptical/suspicious of him.

[Sheb]

But I didn't say anything like that. I said it's blamed as anti-Russian hysteria by the Democrats. Do I have to spell the same thing out again:

- Conservatives traditionally blame liberals as being a commie front

- Now real evidence of Russian nefarious doings is appearing

- But that's clearly just liberal paranoia, with conservatives acting like they're baffled that you'd think the Russians would ever try to manipulate America.

Conservatives blame liberals on being a Russian front? Is that something real post 1990?

[Shadowlord]

But I didn't say anything like that. I said it's blamed as anti-Russian hysteria by the Democrats. Do I have to spell the same thing out again:

- Conservatives traditionally blame liberals as being a commie front

- Now real evidence of Russian nefarious doings is appearing

- But that's clearly just liberal paranoia, with conservatives acting like they're baffled that you'd think the Russians would ever try to manipulate America.

Conservatives blame liberals on being a Russian front? Is that something real post 1990?

Yes