Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That is stupid, because it risks a rash act. But I do not think even the Russians are going to nuke the US. They might drop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. But nuking us would be the end of everything. Somebody shoots Putin before that happens.
|
In other words, they are an existential threat. Glad to hear that you are not worried about a nuclear war. I wish your cocksure certainty gave me some comfort.
Quote:
|
That article was a just a rehash of every prior allegation rolled up into one screed. And it was weak sauce. Disinformation is not "meddling." It's a form of campaigning people have used since people have run for office. Anyone trying to call manipulation of the credulous a crime is missing the problem. The problem isn't the propagandist, but the moron who believes the propagandist. We have a lotta morons here.
|
If you only look at an article like that through lens of asking if there are "allegations" against Trump that might stick in an impeachment trial, I'm sure it's weak sauce. If you were to stop and ask, what is Russia doing that, say, France is not, then the sauce is not so weak.
Indeed, we have a lot of morons here. That's exactly why the disinformation is a problem.
Quote:
|
Why would you think I was pro-Russia? I am anti-media.
|
Someone might read your tendentious efforts to excuse away stories about Russia as "weak sauce" and think, well, you're just an apologist for Russia. My point, which you have repeated, is that you are anti-media, and your tendentious efforts are just a by-product of those instincts.
Quote:
You asked if I changed my position on Trump's relationship with Russia because of the war. I said no. And then I clarified that my only position on Trump's relationship with Russia was that it was falsely characterized (by far more than just the media) as one in which Trump was proactive, as opposed to a manipulated asset.
Trump's relationship with Russia doesn't have much, if anything, to do with this war. As I said, Putin manipulating Trump was one device to protect Russia's sphere of influence, and this war is another.
|
That actually wasn't the way I put my question, and the words you have chosen -- characteristically, given your bent -- put the focus on Trump, rather than Russia. Part of my point is that we can all look back at those episodes and see that they were part of a larger tragedy about Russia, rather than (just) a smaller farce about Trump. You prefer to keep re-reading the farce.
Quote:
|
I guess one could argue that if Trump were still in office the war actually would not have happened, as Putin wouldn't feel the need to use that chess move, as he'd still have the ability to manipulate Trump, which is a far less costly one.
|
Were there Britons in May 1940 who asked each other, how would the war be going if Neville were still in charge?
Quote:
|
Russia sought to get influence with Trump by giving him stuff to help him get elected. He took that stuff, used it, and knowing he'd need a miracle to get re-elected, cozied up to Russia, hoping to get more stuff from them that'd help him. He also borrowed a ton of money from them. All of that has been exposed and acknowledged a million times. What am I supposed to say in response to a rehash of that?
|
If someone wants to rehash it, I guess we'll find out.
Quote:
|
Putin has lost his mind. This is the dumbest unforced error in the history of dictatorships. I still can't wrap my head around it, but there is a silver lining -- he's uniting a fractured West.
|
Isn't it pretty to think so?
