DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Russian Collusion 2024

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-accuse-russia-effort-influence-2024-election-cnn-2024-09-04/

I'm always skeptical of youtube shorts of political commentators I have never heard of. Here's the reuters story covering the same thing.

As for the thread title - collusion is the wrong word ... this is Russian Meddling. Collusion would imply Trump is a party to this. Sure the meddling is intended to have Trump elected - but that isn't collusion.

I stupidly missed this thread when I posted an article saying the same thing, but you're spot on.

It does beg the tough question, though, of why the Russians are aiming to do what they did, and why they're trying to do it again...

I'm quite sure that mgh nailed it in his response. This is Rusian interference and in no way what any rational person could describe as collusion. So I understand why people would be making fun of OCD's post. Yet at the same time look around you. Do you really think any of the trumpians are going to seriously address what has happened here? If in fact they do it would be a very rare occasion.

No matter what he says or does, no matter what happens regarding Russian interference, they play the "hear no, see no, speak no" game almost every time. Same as it ever was.

Over and over his former appointees- who HE chose call him unfit- yet.....old example- " Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Trump had the understanding of “a fifth- or sixth-grader,” according to accounts of Woodward’s book that were published by The Washington Post. The comments came after a National Security Council meeting on Jan. 19 in which Trump questioned why the government was using resources to maintain a U.S. military presence on the Korean Peninsula. Mattis told Trump that presence was necessary “in order to prevent World War III.” Trump claims to know just about everything....yet....those who have worked for him sing another tune.

Why wouldn't the Russians want Trump in the White House- according to "the Donald", he'd end the "war" in Ukraine in a DAY.....WOW, as some folks have said-- "a useful idiot".

Discuss! What do you think is going on here?

I tried, but I guess I'll just repose the question...why do we think the Russians put forth efforts to boost the 2016 Trump campaign and why do we think they are trying to throw cash at MAGA-associated influencers now?

It is the political variation of the marital saying "What's mine is mine, What's ours is mine" Or the parental saying "Do as i say, not as I do."

Bottom Line...

It's OK for the Russians to help the GOP, but criminal if they help Democrats.

Well .... I guess the obvious go to would be why would Russia want Trump in office. Their funding of a right wing media outlet clearly has that goal in mind. Hitt has a decent answer above.

BUT .... then I thought to myself what is a different angle to take. While Russia and the "collusion" angle got all the attention in 2016 when an unprecedented number of Trump associates or people connected to his campaign were connected to and in some cases prosecuted for undisclosed interactions with foreign governments - and we had Trump tell the world “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” ... and while I thought of that I also remember hearing a lot of experts say that in "every" election foreign governments interfere and try to influence. Covertly as well as overtly.

SO .... then I thought to myself, if we want to accept foreign interference might be common place. And maybe it's not always to get one candidate elected - what other reasons do they have to interfere? And I personally believe one of Putin's main agendas anywhere in the world is to create chaos - do de-stabilize - to create discord and disharmony. Why? Because Russia is really no longer a super power. Because only by creating this disunity in the RoTW does it elevate Russia and make Russia more relevant and important on the world stage. So maybe that's really all this is.

Then .... then I thought, well what's more dangerous to the USA than Putin creating chaos, spreading misinformation and trying to divide the country. And I thought to myself that an American President doing those things is more dangerous. An American President that says things like the only way they can lose the election is if there is mass voter fraud. A President that won't accept the result and never concede or carry on the tradition of peaceful transition of power. A President that is an echo chamber for Russian and foreign lies and misinformation. A President willing to arrange for a scheme of fake electors to be put in place to prevent the validation of the election results and who would pressure the Vice President to put himself above and over the constitution.

I reckon any of those are worthwhile talking points. I think talking about why Russia wants Trump to be president is speculation that different political viewpoints might argue over. Acknowledging that Elections are frequently interfered with is factual and discussing why this happens might be interesting no matter people political perspective. Discussing the final points - which are all 100% factual - would be the most interesting. But that's just me.

Who's funding the "Russians?" I think people put too much importance on "states"/"governments." And not enough on the multinational corporations/entities pulling strings in more than one (or, to put it another way, as many as they can.)

Yes, the "Russians" were probably "helping" Trump. "They" were probably "helping" the left, too. If the purpose as stated in the indictment linked in the other thread was to increase division, it'd make sense to play both sides against each other.

Some"body" wants a finger in all the pies.

You're spot on about the Russian dynamic. Nothing irks Putin more than the fact Russia collapsed. He is older now and I think he is realizing he needs to move more urgently to achieve what was his goal. I think he expected Ukraine to go a lot more smoothly, honestly, but I think that was driven by misinformation given to him by his own people, for the purpose of appeasing him. The dude honestly expected to be greeted with flower. Oops...

But yes, Russia LOVES driving chaos. It's very easy to do and Western, Democratic-based countries are much more vulnerable to it than places like China, obviously. They also love to hack. They hacked the Clinton campaign, obviously, and then I think made some attempts at hacking those on the right. I want to say Marco Rubio's. But a couple points really stood out to me and continue to stand out, and those points are these:

1. Several associates of the Trump campaign met with Russia. That includes Papadapoulos (pled guilty), Trump (April 2016), Sessions (April 2016) and Kushner (April 2016), Junior, Manafort and Flynn (who lied and then was found guilty, and then pardoned).

2. The Russians (to my knowledge) never released anything damaging on Trump, and never attempted to damage his campaign.

3. Trump has never spoken poorly of Vladimir Putin, and publicly sided with him over the NSA on live television.

Those are the main points. There are a host of other small points that, when you aggregate everything together, paints a really awful picture.

As someone who disdains both sides myself, I don't really think you can play the "both sides" hand when it comes to Russia.

j/c...

So this woman started a media company with money from the Kremlin in an attempt to get Trump elected?







I'm starting to think people will fall for anything as long as the word "Russia!!" is attached. Fell for $hillary's Steele dossier to try to influence that election. Fell for the fake "Russian disinformation" laptop that was spread to influence the last election. Now, someone's going to put Trump in office with 10M from the Kremlin? When Kamala has well over a half billion to tell us how dangerous Trump is and how she'll change the world on day one?

I'm not buying it. You can fool me eighteen times, but I won't be fooled again.

I think the real interesting story is that they started screaming "Russia!!" about six months ago, it fell flat, and then they shelved it in a blink of an eye. I predicted then that "Russia!!" would be back closer to the election.

When have the Russians been accused of helping Dems (especially recently with election meddling)?

So what about the Mueller report isn't true? And are you honestly telling me you find zero concern when it comes to Trump and Putin, given everything we've seen with our own eyes (Trump's statements, Carlson's grocery store visits, MTG and Junior disparaging Zelensky, etc.).

I'll tell you what, if you can find one time where Trump stood up to Putin, or condemned him, I will completely back out of this thread.

You're a very smart guy, and maybe it's just the nature of my work that really makes me see red when it comes to Russia, but I struggle to find why people don't think this is more concerning.

They sure fall for every Twitter post that suits their agenda.

So what is it in the indictment that "suggests it was Lauren Chin"?

She owns the media company!

"Give me some examples of Trump's statements critical of Russia's invasion of Ukraine"
(Perplexity AI)



reuters.com favicon
axios.com favicon
washingtonpost.com favicon
rollingstone.com favicon
brookings.edu favicon


While Donald Trump's statements about Russia's invasion of Ukraine have been mixed, he has made some specific criticisms of the invasion. Here are the key points regarding Trump's critical statements:

Condemnation at CPAC

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 26, 2022, Trump shifted his tone and criticized Russia's actions:
He condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Trump expressed sympathy for the Ukrainian people.

He praised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for his courage in remaining in Kyiv during the crisis.


"Crime Against Humanity" Statement

In a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity on March 10, 2022, Trump made his strongest criticism of the invasion:
He labeled the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "crime against humanity".

Trump emphasized that the situation needed to be stopped immediately.


Shift in Perspective

Trump acknowledged a change in his view of Putin's actions:

He stated, "Now, a lot of things are changing, and you're seeing that, as you know, it doesn't seem to be the same Putin that I was dealing with"
.
This comment suggests a recognition that Putin's actions in Ukraine were more severe than Trump had initially assessed.


Attributing Blame

While criticizing the invasion, Trump often framed his comments in the context of blaming the current U.S. administration:
He attributed the Russian assault on Ukraine to Putin exploiting what he described as Biden's "weakness".

Trump maintained that the invasion would have been averted had he still been in office.


It's important to note that while Trump made these critical statements, they were often accompanied by or followed statements praising Putin's intelligence or strategic thinking, creating a complex and sometimes contradictory narrative about his stance on the invasion.

This Laura Chen?


The one your Twitter post tried to paint as liberal?

Some more Chen....

Far right wingers like Chen will stop at nothing it appears.

That's not exactly standing up to Putin or condemning him, but since that was an AI response, let's put this into context...

Trump initially referred to Putin's invasion as "genius" and "smart." When Sean Hannity - using the same Fox News resource your bot cited- asked him "I think you also recognize he's evil, do you not?" the response was "Well, I was referring to the fact that he said this is an independent nation, talking about Ukraine."

"Now a lot of things are changing, when you look, this doesn't seem to be the same Putin that I was dealing with," he added.

Again, not exactly sharp rebukes or condemnation of Putin there.

Also thought this was kind of interesting while I was doing my research...






Good stuff.

Back to my question, though. And I'm earnestly asking this to someone who I presume is voting for Trump, do you not find any of the data points out there regarding Trump and Putin, combined with what you yourself have witnessed, to be red flags?

NOBODY tried to paint her as liberal -- that's a Pit Special redirect. It's obvious that she is not a Trump supporter.


Which makes this a hard sell. On one hand, we're expected to believe that whoever these Russians are, this a direct motive by their own government to influence our election.

On the other hand, these geniuses (obviously, since they're capable of fixing elections) partook in a conversation that must have sounded something like this...

"We have to get Trump back in power. I have an idea to influence the election. We have to find an American company to help create the content".

"Who do you think we should contract to get this done?"

"I don't know, but let's start with finding someone who doesn't want him in power".

I think the fact remains that the Russians seem to be trying to influence Conservatives far more than they are the Liberals. Now, if you want to talk China, you will see my tone completely change, but when Trump came to power in 2016, I actually expected that one benefit we might get is that he would stand up to the Russians quite emphatically. Call me stupid because everything I've seen since then has gone completely the opposite direction. The Steele dossier and all claims of collusion set aside, something stinks...bad.

And putting Trump as the image for the Yahoo article is such a "today's journalism" move.

So you're saying she prefers Kamala to trump? You do know that's a ridiculous theory to promote, right? She may have felt that way when trump wasn't the only possible choice there was between himself and a democrat. But now.

The funniest thing is how you're trying to frame this. There is nothing about using misinformation to undermine liberals that means you are supporting trump. But then again maybe you should listen to the very things those shows say. Why would she allow the shows on her very own network to support trump since she owns the business if she's so set that trump not be elected? Hmmmm....

#triggered

Yep. 100%. But the more you repeat it, the more you spread it. The more the msm toes the line, the more people are gullible enough to repeat it. Twelve hours after the "news" Daman is already calling everything Russian propaganda.

I know when your post starts with "so you're saying" that you don't really want talk about the actual subject of the conversation.

Red flags?? Some of it may raise an eyebrow, but nothing more than that.

I'm far more fascinated with getting to the bottom of the "fantasy". What exactly is Trump's evil plot, besides letting Putin run wild to take over the universe? What's so troubling, and why?

I'm far more fascinated at the media's ability to still use a dog whistle that has looked more like a fresh pile of dog $hit the last few times. And way, waay more fascinated in understanding how it still works.

Makes me sad for our future.

So sticking to facts - the indictment says nothing about trying to get anyone elected - it sites the intent to use the media company to spread disinformation. And I agree with Pit - Chen's dislike of Trump doesn't mean it's not possible to undermine and spread disinformation about "liberals/democrats" while also telling people not to vote for Trump. And is it possible those comments and that position was before Trump was the official Republican nominee? What has Chen said since Trump/Vance was the ticket?

Point two - in my comments about the topic to discuss, I highlighted the desire for Putin to spread disinformation, create chaos/disharmony. This **Seemingly** fits that bill - none of us know all the details. I - perhaps naively - assume there is more to the indictment than the fact that the $10M came from Russia. I guess we will find out.

I still like my last talking point about what's most dangerous for the USA ....

You are the one that claims she doesn't support trump. There are only two people that stand a chance of being elected. So which one are you claiming she supports? Since she owns that network why would she have programs by people clearly supporting trump?

It's not me ignoring the obvious questions that is avoiding the subject here. It's you trying to twist this into acting like it's some shocker that a far right winger would be helping distribute Russian misinformation in our election to give trump an advantage. And I'm not even sure she knew that. From everything I've seen the way this money was funneled into the network she may not have even known its original source.

He did just come out and say he hopes Kamala wins, with a sly smile about her "infectious laugh" so he is no doubt trying to go for chaos. That's his end game. Also, anything to deflect on how poorly his three day invasion has gone.

Welp, I guess we're looking for the same thing. I just think it's much more tangible and less of a fantasy given all the repeated issues and facts surrounding the situation.

Bottom line is that it seems pretty obvious that Russia wants Trump back in office.

Or does the appearance of "Russia wanting Trump back in office" actually improve Kamala's chances?

If something Russia-related is "obvious," personally I'd be suspect of why a country run by a former KGB agent would allow it to be so. Appearances can be deceiving.

You've said it yourself. People have a tendency to fall out of favor with the orange one. Those that get dropped seem to be willing to turn on him fairly frequently.

I'm guessing it's more likely that Russia wants us to be occupied with internal problems than being overly concerned with either of these seemingly tractable candidates.