By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - [Update] CIA & FBI Report: Russia did things to help get Trump elected

Were those emails false? Did they have classified state matters?
If not, I thank Russia for supporting democracy. Unlike the Dems who want rebels to take over my country.



Around the Network
Talal said:
LurkerJ said:

It wasn't Iraq, for sure.

It happened in 2001 and your president invaded the wrong country as a response. Who pushed for that response? The Saudis, because they saw a good opportunity to get rid of Saddam and they pushed for it.

Whoever your president is, the Saudi will have their claws deep in your politicians. I hope that, for the sake of the planet, Trump is different.

The fuck?

They offered lands and military bases to American soldiers like no other country in the region. What did that support mean? Sure, "pushing for the war" isn't the right description here, since the US had their goals as well and no arms were being twisted on either side, but the Saudi regime was more than happy to offer support and let the US do the dirty work. Whatever official statements they made back then, it was just the usual facade politicians put on to not anger their people.

Besides, it's not like the Saudis' role in replacing regimes and leaders throughout the Arabic countries is a secret anymore, they'll step up and meddle even in the absence of the US support or refusal to cooperate. The examples from the past few years alone are numerous. Had Iraq not been invaded, the Arabic spring would've caught on Iraq and they would've been more than happy to arm the repels like they are doing in Syria, or squashing the protesters like they did in Bahrain, or helped in toppling an officially elected leader like they did in Egypt.



Bandorr said:
I'm just going to go with this quote.

"Look, it's not about what Russia released. It's about the active involvement of a foreign govt electing our president. That's the problem."

This issue is this is always bad. You can't play a fair weather fan in this situation. It isn't "well they released THIS information so it is good" then later shame them when they do something else.

Okay, but we have information regardless of how we got it. Does it matter whether or not it's valid information, or is it just enough to say that those damnable Russians wanted us to have it so we should just pretend it doesn't exist?

Also, was Russia the only party trying to influence the election? Clearly not, since a lot of media outlets did their damnedest to swing it. So is this only bad because these are foreigners? Well, what about Mexican and Saudi billionaires who own American media, which was in lockstep behind Clinton? Or is it only bad in this case because they're Russian? Or is it that the Russians are only bad because they supported the wrong candidate?



badgenome said:

Or is it only bad in this case because they're Russian? 

It's pretty much what this boils down too ... 

A new era of MyCarthyism if I do say so myself ... 



Bandorr said:
I'm just going to go with this quote.

"Look, it's not about what Russia released. It's about the active involvement of a foreign govt electing our president. That's the problem."

This issue is this is always bad. You can't play a fair weather fan in this situation. It isn't "well they released THIS information so it is good" then later shame them when they do something else.

Russia didn't elected shit. They simply pointed something out, and correctly guessed there would be enough intelligent people in America to make the right choice. Besides, is highly questionable that the emails had that much impact the elections. Plenty of people were already dissapointed in the establishment and plenty more were loosing/already lost their jobs hanks to Obama.

Trumps message of putting Americans first is what won him the election.



“Simple minds have always confused great honesty with great rudeness.” - Sherlock Holmes, Elementary (2013).

"Did you guys expected some actual rational fact-based reasoning? ...you should already know I'm all about BS and fraudulence." - FunFan, VGchartz (2016)

Around the Network
LurkerJ said:
Talal said:

The fuck?

They offered lands and military bases to American soldiers like no other country in the region. What did that support mean? Sure, "pushing for the war" isn't the right description here, since the US had their goals as well and no arms were being twisted on either side, but the Saudi regime was more than happy to offer support and let the US do the dirty work. Whatever official statements they made back then, it was just the usual facade politicians put on to not anger their people.

Besides, it's not like the Saudis' role in replacing regimes and leaders throughout the Arabic countries is a secret anymore, they'll step up and meddle even in the absence of the US support or refusal to cooperate. The examples from the past few years alone are numerous. Had Iraq not been invaded, the Arabic spring would've caught on Iraq and they would've been more than happy to arm the repels like they are doing in Syria, or squashing the protesters like they did in Bahrain, or helped in toppling an officially elected leader like they did in Egypt.

Saudi Arabia is the source of a lot of evil, that much is undeniable, but I don't think the Iraq war was on Saudi Arabia. The US gets the blame on that one.



Whoever it is; they're all pathetic. There was a reason I never got involved in politics before, I should do that again.



Bet with bluedawgs: I say Switch will outsell PS4 in 2018, he says PS4 will outsell Switch. He's now permabanned, but the bet will remain in my sig.

NNID: Slarvax - Steam: Slarvax - Friend Code:  SW 7885-0552-5988

Talal said:
LurkerJ said:

They offered lands and military bases to American soldiers like no other country in the region. What did that support mean? Sure, "pushing for the war" isn't the right description here, since the US had their goals as well and no arms were being twisted on either side, but the Saudi regime was more than happy to offer support and let the US do the dirty work. Whatever official statements they made back then, it was just the usual facade politicians put on to not anger their people.

Besides, it's not like the Saudis' role in replacing regimes and leaders throughout the Arabic countries is a secret anymore, they'll step up and meddle even in the absence of the US support or refusal to cooperate. The examples from the past few years alone are numerous. Had Iraq not been invaded, the Arabic spring would've caught on Iraq and they would've been more than happy to arm the repels like they are doing in Syria, or squashing the protesters like they did in Bahrain, or helped in toppling an officially elected leader like they did in Egypt.

Saudi Arabia is the source of a lot of evil, that much is undeniable, but I don't think the Iraq war was on Saudi Arabia. The US gets the blame on that one.

I was trying to illustrate how no matter which party runs the office, they can be influenced by the exact same outsiders. It's not exclusive to democrats. You are right though, my example wasn't accurate.



badgenome said:

Okay, but we have information regardless of how we got it. Does it matter whether or not it's valid information, or is it just enough to say that those damnable Russians wanted us to have it so we should just pretend it doesn't exist?

Also, was Russia the only party trying to influence the election? Clearly not, since a lot of media outlets did their damnedest to swing it. So is this only bad because these are foreigners? Well, what about Mexican and Saudi billionaires who own American media, which was in lockstep behind Clinton? Or is it only bad in this case because they're Russian? Or is it that the Russians are only bad because they supported the wrong candidate?

I don't think the issue here is knowing that foreign states tried to influence the election. You have to think of the motives. What motivated most of the world to support Clinton? They wanted to keep the status quo. The Middle East and the European countries were probably a bit wary of what would change if Trump won. Because he's made a lot of statements that if he followed through with would damage their economies. Why would Russia push so hard for Trump? I don't believe the conspiracy theories that he owes Russian banks or whatever other bullshit, but it still raises concerns that he's sympathetic to Russia and Putin and he has criticized NATO.

 

Edit: At the end of the day I don't think it makes that much of a difference to foreign policies regardless of who was president. Nothing will happen to NATO and I don't expect Russian sanctions to be lifted. And Trump isn't going to end the alliance with Saudi Arabia for example. They're a very important ally regardless of how shady they are behind the scenes.



I think it goes without saying you messed up badly America...