Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatoraccountant, Dec 13, 2019.
It is always forgotten
PSA: When they say 'Christian nation,' they mean who rules in who's interest, not how many people go to church
Exactly. Pace Ghandi, few who call themselves Christians and I am also guilty of this shortcoming on many occasions, take all the teachings with complete seriousness. It's Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship writ large.
But I digress. In this case, Putin just uses it as a mark of Western identity are probably more accurately northern European and North American identity, against Islam, and also against LGBT rights
Let me know when you have some proof of that and we can talk. Until then it's just the Sweet Nothings MSNBC and CNN have been whispering in your ear for over 3 years.
The leftists in the Democrat party...
oh my gosh. Says the poster who never provides proof.
Yep. The extent of the Russian infiltration into arms of the GOP is really incredible. And the religious fervor with which some of their followers will wrap themselves in the American flag while pushing Kremlin talking points offers an indication of how successful that investment into the IRA and GOP outreach has been.
It’s awe-inspiring to see. Why fight a Cold War when for a fraction of the cost, you can get the GOP to push your talking points?
Click “come on man” if you like, but the proof is in the pudding. Here’s a Russian talking point if ever there were one:
Its ok, you can name names, pretend you are at HUAC.
Not sure why I'm posting this link since you apparently do not consider the source credible (I suspect that you consider RT news or its American equivalent the opinion side of Fox News more credible), but here's the proof whether you choose or to believe it or not.
Helsinki summit: Trump sides with Putin over US intelligence - CNNPolitics
Trump's own words
Same story from the BBC, you probably do not consider them credible either but at least they're not CNN or MSNBC
Somehow I doubt if this bothered you quite as much???
Restating the original post, to at least some conservatives Putin's Russia, or at least the way that they perceive today's Russia, is what America was culturally when America was Great (back in the 1950s). Gays knew their place (they didn't really have one) and everyone was white. I recall reading an article on the subject several months ago and to illustrate that Russia is one of the few remaining really white countries the article used photographs of the national teams from the 2018 World Cup. Virtually every team from a Western European Country had at least some players of color, Russia was one of the few that was all white.
I think this photo from one of Trump's MAGA rallies says it all.
It didn't, because there were no specifics given. You don't even know what they were talking about. So what is there to be outraged about?
The only assumption is whatever it was, may have been somewhat controversial or politically sensitive. Big scandal!
no takers, huh?
Edit: Forget to answer your question. It didn't bother me when it happened. It did bother me when it became obvious that Obama had been played after Putin demonstrated that he had the same expansionist agenda as his Soviet predecessors. Does it bother you the way Trump is being played by Putin especially since Putin has through his actions expressed a desire to resurrect the Soviet Union version 2.0 (a new Russian empire sans a communist economy)?
Said this many times before, Obama ridiculed Romney when Romney referred to Russia as our greatest geopolitical foe. Obama learned that he was played by Putin when Russia invaded the Eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014. Obama was naive and learned the truth the hard way. What's Trump's excuse? Presumably he should have learned from Obama's mistakes. I suspect it's a combination of factors. First, Putin undoubtedly has a detailed psychological profile of Trump and knows how to play to the Donald's extreme narcissism; Trump has done business in Russia and probably still has a desire to do so after he leaves office and Putin is playing to Trump's desire to enrich himself; and finally there is a good chance (obviously speculation) that Russia has some knowledge of Trump's personal and/or financial background that would embarrass the Donald if made public (not beyond the realm of possibility that Trump has been bailed out financially by Russian oligarchs). I think the latter may be very likely considering Trump's extreme obsession with protecting the confidentiality of his finances, including his tax returns, banking records and other financial documents.
Incredible, just incredible - it's the twilight zone.
Yes, that conversation there means literally nothing to me. It might be an interesting historical footnote if we knew what they were talking about, what the Russian "ask" was in terms of policy, but as far as I know we do not. One thing we can be sure of, Obama wasn't asking the Russians to investigate Mitt Romney.
But obviously with the benefit of hindsight, Romney was dead on accurate on Russia in that debate and Obama's comments were foolish. Trump on the other hand plays both sides of this, on the one hand he ridicules Obama for not being tough enough vs. Russia, on the other hand he has a bizarre affinity for Putin, at times repeats Russian propaganda, and has at times tried to undermine or minimize sanctions that the congress overwhelmingly approved against Russia (including specific crooked oligarchs). Even his actions in Ukraine, whether intentional or not they were to the benefit of Russia. His Syria withdrawal, to the benefit of Russia (and Turkey).
Taking both sides of issues is pretty much what Trump does consistently. That way he is never actually held responsible for any of his words or actions. I guess it's brilliant, in a way, if people are dumb enough to not see through it.
You didn't read the article, did you? Because if you did, you would know that the article started with disaffected left-wing radicals and their love of the USSR and compared it directly with the new disaffected right-wing radicals through their dissatisfaction with liberalism (small l).
There is a strain of conservative Christianity that is more interested in social hierarchy maintenance than moral teachings. This group largely found its political voice in the 1950s in opposition to integration, and they are the ones who try to defend things like children in cages today. While they speak in moralistic terms, a much more accurate decision rule for them than "what is moral" is "what maintains the existing social hierarchy." For a good example of this, look at Jerry Falwell. What issue brought the reverend into politics? Abortion? Helping the poor? Improving marriages? Nope, it was opposition to MLK and desegregation and anger because the federal government wanted to stop funding religious schools that explicitly excluded black students.
To this group, Russia is interesting as both a source of funding and as an example of a society that they view as respecting the hierarchy. They are also the group most likely to support authoritarian personality leaders.
Great post! It's almost (but not quite in this case) beyond belief that you got 2 "come on mans". Some "Americans" might do better to catch the first plane to Moscow.