[RUS] Putin - the most moderate Russian politician acceptable to the Russian public
What many in the West don't get is that many Russians are a patriotic lot, and hardy in their nationalism, and with the history of the world since perestroika, they carry now a not insignificant disdain for "the West". Putin really is the most moderate politician that is actually acceptable/ electable in Russia. And this is not a comment on the particular man, Vladimir Putin, but on the political positions or nature of him - by Russian sensibilities he is very moderate, excessively accomodating to the Western regimes, and a bit too much of a "weak pussy" who ought to have stepped in and militarily protected the Donbass (the area where the Russian people in Eastern Ukraine live), should teach the West a royal lesson in Syria, and generally dish out some Russian justice to the axis of Western evil. Let's make no mistake, the average Russian sees things just a little differently to the average USAian :) If Anyone Was Cheated by Kremlin Fraud in Russia Elections It Was the Communists, Not Pro-Western Liberals http://www.unz.com/ishamir/democracys-last-chance/ (Alt: http://russia-insider.com/en/if-anyone-was-cheated-kremlin-fraud-russia-elec... )
What many in the West don't get is that many Russians are a patriotic lot, and hardy in their nationalism, and with the history of the world since perestroika, they carry now a not insignificant disdain for "the West".
Meh. Early in Putin's reign, when eastern bloc countries were all joining NATO, there was a widely done poll amongst Russians in their attitude towards the West. I forget the exact numbers, but it was generally favorable overall, with support for Russia joining the EU "some day." The results went up dramatically when focusing on younger generations. Years later, it's a whole different story. For that matter, Americans had generally favorable view of Russia back then, too. Relentless state propaganda is quite effective. And I don't fault Putin for the propaganda, nor his distrust of the West. I'd distrust an alliance that is putting rockets withing striking distance of my capital as well. Largely, I think he's a very smart man, and a good statesman. But Putin isn't the good guy. There are no fucking good guys and bad guys. There are just guys, playing chess. White moves first, then black. Rooks. Queens. Castling. Good and bad, right and wrong, don't enter the equation. Whose the good guy, and whose the bad guy is the wrong question. The appropriate question is: are these players actually trying to win against each other, or is it an exhibition match for show, to keep people glued to the board while each side sells merchandising, and makes movies about who is, or is not, the good guy.
2016-09-24 4:29 GMT+03:00 <xorcist@sigaint.org>:
There are no fucking good guys and bad guys. There are just guys, playing chess. Good and bad, right and wrong, don't enter the equation.
GOOD and bad, RIGHT and wrong - are THE ONLY VARIABLES in this equation. Whether in micro = everyone's personal life ___Whether___ in MACRO = in the geopolitics of the world. Whose the good guy, and whose the bad guy is the wrong question.
Who is the Good and who is the bad-evil guy/country -
*IS THE ONLY RIGHT AND THE ONLY IMPORTANT QUESTION,fucker.* Thus the attitude to these people-countries-their actions - must be appropriate. __ *p.s.* In simple words: Putin-Russia ARE the good guys. And Obama/Hillary/-Usa ARE the bad-evil guys. Period.
GOOD and bad, RIGHT and wrong - are THE ONLY VARIABLES in this equation.
<shrug> I disagree. On a personal level, right and wrong certainly exist. I believe this is the only plane where morality has any real meaning. On a geopolitical level, good and evil are meaningless, UNLESS you make the simple statement that ALL states are evil. That I can agree with. Like street gangs, for instance. But once you're IN that game, there is no more good and evil. There is our gang, and their gang. We compete, and that's the game. Like chess. I was never much a fan of chess. Simulated war game silliness. Nor sports like football where you're running back and forth towards opposing goals, and playing at invading territory. Cricket and baseball are more my speed. You share the field, and take turns being on the top of the mound, and getting shit thrown at you. It has an element of team play, and an element of one-on-one competition while the team stands around.
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 01:29:33AM -0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
What many in the West don't get is that many Russians are a patriotic lot, and hardy in their nationalism, and with the history of the world since perestroika, they carry now a not insignificant disdain for "the West".
Meh. Early in Putin's reign, when eastern bloc countries were all joining NATO, there was a widely done poll amongst Russians in their attitude towards the West. I forget the exact numbers, but it was generally favorable overall, with support for Russia joining the EU "some day." The results went up dramatically when focusing on younger generations.
Years later, it's a whole different story. For that matter, Americans had generally favorable view of Russia back then, too. Relentless state propaganda is quite effective.
And I don't fault Putin for the propaganda, nor his distrust of the West. I'd distrust an alliance that is putting rockets withing striking distance of my capital as well. Largely, I think he's a very smart man, and a good statesman.
But Putin isn't the good guy. There are no fucking good guys and bad guys. There are just guys, playing chess. White moves first, then black. Rooks. Queens. Castling. Good and bad, right and wrong, don't enter the equation.
Whose the good guy, and whose the bad guy is the wrong question.
The appropriate question is: are these players actually trying to win against each other, or is it an exhibition match for show, to keep people glued to the board while each side sells merchandising, and makes movies about who is, or is not, the good guy.
First you raised a straw man "Putin good man/ bad man", then you raise a dichotomy "the wrong question vs the right question". There are actions in the world. Some exhibit what I name as evil intentions. Others actions exhibit good intentions. Others still exhibit blind faith in the empire, self interest and all manner of other things. Soros' emails show he wanted to break up Russia (not just the USSR) to ultimately create a one world hegemon. Putin decided Russia was a nation of 170 million people who deserve better than Soros "break up Russia" intention, and set about doing many good actions in support of that nationalistic position. "The West" has time and again demonstrated utter contempt for anything actually worth regarding. Russians have seen this, and of course the Russian media does its level best to draw this out, and boost their ratings from such madness as is so regularly displayed in the West and by Westerners, and as a result of seeing this, Russians now have a, rather low, regard for "the West". This is a healthy development :)
First you raised a straw man "Putin good man/ bad man", then you raise a dichotomy "the wrong question vs the right question".
Straw man implies I'm arguing with you, or trying to refute your opinion. I'm just having a discussion, and the "Putin good man / bad man" thing was mostly to clarify my own position, as I had just stated my opinion of some of his positive qualities.
There are actions in the world.
Truly.
Some exhibit what I name as evil intentions. Others actions exhibit good intentions.
Right. You name them. It's your opinion. I may even agree with that opinion. But I am operating from the standpoint where I understand that others have different opinions, and may name things in exactly the reverse order. That's why I meant by there are no good guys and bad guys in geopolitics. American's are going to (on the whole) support America. Russians are, on the whole, going to support Russia. As I understand it, people tend to support their local sports teams too.
Soros' emails show he wanted to break up Russia (not just the USSR) to ultimately create a one world hegemon.
Surely. My point was more in regards to the "since perestroika" part. Mainly that, since those times, Russian/American opinions of each have been up, and been down; whereas it sounded like you are presenting the idea that Russian's opinion of America has steadily declined.
From my understanding, that is not the case.
Putin decided Russia was a nation of 170 million people who deserve better than Soros "break up Russia" intention, and set about doing many good actions in support of that nationalistic position.
Agreed. He is playing for his team. I'm sure someone like Kissinger would argue Soros is playing for the other team.
"The West" has time and again demonstrated utter contempt for anything actually worth regarding.
I tend to agree. We have similar definitions of worth.
Russians have seen this, and of course the Russian media does its level best to draw this out, and boost their ratings from such madness as is so regularly displayed in the West and by Westerners, and as a result of seeing this, Russians now have a, rather low, regard for "the West".
Depends on who you talk to. Russians in the West certainly don't, that I've talked to.
This is a healthy development :)
It's a development. Some years ago, I was living in New York City. I sat in a bar once, talking the piss with a couple of guys that were older than I. One, a former U.S. marine. The other, a former Russian soldier. We sat around, getting a bit tossed, telling jokes and having a good time. The conversation turned to their pasts, when the subject of their military backgrounds came up, and it turned out that they had both served in their respective forces at the same time. I shut the fuck up, first, not having any inclinations to military type loyalties, and because I was curious how this whole thing was going to go down now that we'd both had a good number of drinks. The American observed that, he was glad the world turned out the way it did and that we were all having a good laugh, and that a "bunch of rat bastard politicians" didn't make him have to kill the Russian guy. The Russian poked back in good nature, saying he was glad that he didn't have to try, because the American would surely have lost, sort of thing. Just a bit of guy bravado and joshing around. Just as they started to move the conversation away from all that .. I piped back up and offered: Yeah, but think back to your time in the service. Think back to when you were in it. Back then, you would have never believed you'd be sitting here having a drink together, laughing. Back then, they had you hating each other before you even met. They got quiet. Somber. I let them stew for a bit, and then ordered another round and offered a toast 'So here's to the rat bastards who are smart enough to trick us all, but not smart enough to run the world like a proper clock.. at least the cunts haven't fucked up the booze yet!' Which brought back around the revelry. THAT was a positive development.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 17:16 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
What many in the West don't get is that many Russians are a patriotic lot, and hardy in their nationalism, and with the history of the world since perestroika, they carry now a not insignificant disdain for "the West".
Putin really is the most moderate politician that is actually acceptable/ electable in Russia.
And this is not a comment on the particular man, Vladimir Putin, but on the political positions or nature of him - by Russian sensibilities he is very moderate, excessively accomodating to the Western regimes, and a bit too much of a "weak pussy" who ought to have stepped in and militarily protected the Donbass (the area where the Russian people in Eastern Ukraine live), should teach the West a royal lesson in Syria, and generally dish out some Russian justice to the axis of Western evil.
You do realize you're insulting Russians by calling them jingoists, right? But I guess you don't realize that, since you seem to think calling someone a "nationalist" is a compliment. This is like saying that we should be happy that PETA is only trying to ban horsemeat, and we shouldn't fight them on it, because what they REALLY want to do is ban ALL meat and pet ownership and force us to be vegetarians. Or let's go ahead and give Poland to the Nazis, because that's just a tiny thing compared to what they REALLY want! I get that Russians are pissed about how they've been treated since the end of the Cold War. Far longer, really. Just like I get that Germans were pissed about how they were treated after they lost WWI. You see where I'm going with this? The solution in both cases, by the way, is TRADE. When goods cross borders in sufficient quantities, ICBMs won't. But the Russians seem to want the US to be run by a Putinesque strong man, too. One who thinks trade is a weapon to deployed only when it suits one's own interests. You seem to think Hillary has her finger on the nuclear button, but the fact of the matter is Trump does too. The major difference between the two is that Hillary actually knows it, whereas Trump is suffering so badly from Dunning-Kruger (as are you, AFAICT, assuming you aren't simply a paid propagandist) that he genuinely thinks he'd make us safer by returning us to a pre-WWII world of 30% tariffs and trade wars.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 17:16 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
What many in the West don't get is that many Russians are a patriotic lot, and hardy in their nationalism, and with the history of the world since perestroika, they carry now a not insignificant disdain for "the West".
Putin really is the most moderate politician that is actually acceptable/ electable in Russia.
And this is not a comment on the particular man, Vladimir Putin, but on the political positions or nature of him - by Russian sensibilities he is very moderate, excessively accomodating to the Western regimes, and a bit too much of a "weak pussy" who ought to have stepped in and militarily protected the Donbass (the area where the Russian people in Eastern Ukraine live), should teach the West a royal lesson in Syria, and generally dish out some Russian justice to the axis of Western evil.
You do realize you're insulting Russians by calling them jingoists, right? But I guess you don't realize that, since you seem to think calling someone a "nationalist" is a compliment.
I'm an Australian nationalist. And do you think I care how you and your pro-government, pro-USA, pro-hegemon and forgetful positions, view that?
This is like saying that we should be happy that PETA is only trying to ban horsemeat, and we shouldn't fight them on it, because what they REALLY want to do is ban ALL meat and pet ownership and force us to be vegetarians. Or let's go ahead and give Poland to the Nazis, because that's just a tiny thing compared to what they REALLY want!
I get that Russians are pissed about how they've been treated since the end of the Cold War. Far longer, really. Just like I get that Germans were pissed about how they were treated after they lost WWI. You see where I'm going with this?
The solution in both cases, by the way, is TRADE. When goods cross borders in sufficient quantities, ICBMs won't.
This is what USA government employees or "modern liberals" spout, and try to ram down the throat of the world. This is the PC term for "greed is good" which America backs up with "bend over or be bombed or have your country coup overthrown". As someone said some days ago - America, inparticular the CIA, plots and plans coups for years, decades even, and has a crack sometimes multiple times at the same country (see Syria history for example), and for you (in other emails) to implicitly deny that this is what has happened in Ukraine in the last 3 years is either incredibly ignorant or actively undermining of the truth (or "pro USA establishment" or whatever PC term you want to use). Ukraine's "revolution" was anything but. I could believe some folks genuinely got caught up in the coup, thinking it really was a revolution - that of course does not change the fact it was an American lead, CIA conducted, "most blatant and public coup in history" as EU officials and others around the world have repeatedly named this black kettle. Your blunt refusal to acknowledge the facts leaves you without credibility. Which is a good thing - the ignorance of North Americans is an excellent thing for others in the world to witness, especially those compromised by their employment and golden cage lives.
But the Russians seem to want the US to be run by a Putinesque strong man, too. One who thinks trade is a weapon to deployed only when it suits one's own interests.
Your words are ignorant. And simplistic. And bombastic.
You seem to think Hillary has her finger on the nuclear button, but
so you seem to agree
the fact of the matter is Trump does too.
As has been said before, Trump is possibly (hopefully) more like flipping a coin. Whereas for war, Hillary is a certainty.
The major difference between the two is that Hillary actually knows it, whereas Trump is suffering so badly from Dunning-Kruger (as are you, AFAICT, assuming you aren't simply a paid propagandist) that he genuinely thinks he'd make us safer by returning us to a pre-WWII world of 30% tariffs and trade wars.
Dichotomy. Projection. Lack of insight into alternatives. Implicit individual employment compromise. Not very entertaining for me right now, so I won't waste more time on this one. Feel free to try going a little deeper, though it looks from here like you're not particularly capable of that :/
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 17:16 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
What many in the West don't get is that many Russians are a patriotic lot, and hardy in their nationalism, and with the history of the world since perestroika, they carry now a not insignificant disdain for "the West".
Putin really is the most moderate politician that is actually acceptable/ electable in Russia.
And this is not a comment on the particular man, Vladimir Putin, but on the political positions or nature of him - by Russian sensibilities he is very moderate, excessively accomodating to the Western regimes, and a bit too much of a "weak pussy" who ought to have stepped in and militarily protected the Donbass (the area where the Russian people in Eastern Ukraine live), should teach the West a royal lesson in Syria, and generally dish out some Russian justice to the axis of Western evil.
You do realize you're insulting Russians by calling them jingoists, right? But I guess you don't realize that, since you seem to think calling someone a "nationalist" is a compliment.
I'm an Australian nationalist.
And do you think I care how you and your pro-government, pro-USA, pro-hegemon and forgetful positions, view that?
Which positions are those, exactly? I think you have me confused with someone else.
This is like saying that we should be happy that PETA is only trying to ban horsemeat, and we shouldn't fight them on it, because what they REALLY want to do is ban ALL meat and pet ownership and force us to be vegetarians. Or let's go ahead and give Poland to the Nazis, because that's just a tiny thing compared to what they REALLY want!
I get that Russians are pissed about how they've been treated since the end of the Cold War. Far longer, really. Just like I get that Germans were pissed about how they were treated after they lost WWI. You see where I'm going with this?
The solution in both cases, by the way, is TRADE. When goods cross borders in sufficient quantities, ICBMs won't.
This is what USA government employees or "modern liberals" spout, and try to ram down the throat of the world.
So because those people say it, it's automatically wrong? Does that make you a Nazi because of your Holocaust denial? Give me a break.
This is the PC term for "greed is good" which America backs up with "bend over or be bombed or have your country coup overthrown".
The mercantilists do Orwellianly name their trade restriction agreements "free trade agreements", I'll give you that. But what I mean is ACTUAL TRADE, which requires no special agreement. Just stop telling your people who they're allowed to trade with and stealing from them every time they engage in a transaction. But yes, the US does pretend to be pro-free-trade when it is anything but. But Trump is promising to take that to a whole new level. If you thought the US used trade as a weapon before, what do you think Trump will do?
As someone said some days ago - America, inparticular the CIA, plots and plans coups for years, decades even, and has a crack sometimes multiple times at the same country (see Syria history for example), and for you (in other emails) to implicitly deny that this is what has happened in Ukraine in the last 3 years is either incredibly ignorant or actively undermining of the truth (or "pro USA establishment" or whatever PC term you want to use).
Not saying it hasn't happened. Are you saying Russia, which clearly has an even greater interest in Ukraine, hasn't been up to the same thing far longer?
Ukraine's "revolution" was anything but. I could believe some folks genuinely got caught up in the coup, thinking it really was a revolution - that of course does not change the fact it was an American lead, CIA conducted, "most blatant and public coup in history" as EU officials and others around the world have repeatedly named this black kettle.
A coup is just a revolution you don't like or that failed. I'm sure the US had some hand in it. Did the US create all the conditions that led to it or even a majority? Doubt it. Too expensive and too unlikely to succeed.
Your blunt refusal to acknowledge the facts leaves you without credibility. Which is a good thing - the ignorance of North Americans is an excellent thing for others in the world to witness, especially those compromised by their employment and golden cage lives.
Meaningless to anyone who hasn't already swallowed the Russian perspective hook line and sinker. And amusing coming from someone who has been chided repeatedly on this list for re-posting from the same tabloid news sources over and over. Anyone who considers you credible is not exactly someone I care about believing me.
But the Russians seem to want the US to be run by a Putinesque strong man, too. One who thinks trade is a weapon to deployed only when it suits one's own interests.
Your words are ignorant. And simplistic. And bombastic.
And accurate.
You seem to think Hillary has her finger on the nuclear button, but
so you seem to agree
Actually I don't have a position on whether she does or not. I was just accepting as a given your earlier post about Hillary believing in some kind of "first strike policy" toward Russia.
the fact of the matter is Trump does too.
As has been said before, Trump is possibly (hopefully) more like flipping a coin. Whereas for war, Hillary is a certainty.
War is a certainty for both candidates. Hillary is the only one with the experience and, frankly, the rationality to be able to prevent escalation to an all out direct war that could result in a nuclear exchange. Trump is a narcissist who doesn't understand the first thing about international politics.
The major difference between the two is that Hillary actually knows it, whereas Trump is suffering so badly from Dunning-Kruger (as are you, AFAICT, assuming you aren't simply a paid propagandist) that he genuinely thinks he'd make us safer by returning us to a pre-WWII world of 30% tariffs and trade wars.
Dichotomy. Projection. Lack of insight into alternatives. Implicit individual employment compromise.
Random words meant to distract from the fact that you haven't actually responded to any of my points. Probably because all you're capable of doing is copy-pasting from The Duran and Russia Insider. Perhaps if you can convince one of those fine publications to respond to me, they'll be able to come up with something better than you have that you can then copy and paste? Not very entertaining for me right now, so I won't waste more time on
this one. Feel free to try going a little deeper, though it looks from here like you're not particularly capable of that :/
Oh, right, I forgot, cpunks exists solely for your entertainment. Perhaps you should just stick to treating it as the write-only medium you have been, shouting The Duran and Russia Insider and a few Before Its News articles into the void since no sane person would ever see their content otherwise.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:09:07PM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 17:16 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
This is the PC term for "greed is good" which America backs up with "bend over or be bombed or have your country coup overthrown".
The mercantilists do Orwellianly name their trade restriction agreements "free trade agreements", I'll give you that. But what I mean is ACTUAL TRADE, which requires no special agreement. Just stop telling your people who they're allowed to trade with and stealing from them every time they engage in a transaction.
But yes, the US does pretend to be pro-free-trade when it is anything but. But Trump is promising to take that to a whole new level. If you thought the US used trade as a weapon before, what do you think Trump will do?
We can only hope: amp up trade protectionism, and rebuild or "vertically integrate" America again - bring back manufacturing and domestic agriculture and the consequent jobs and longer term - genuine - prosperity, rather than prosperity by the few, of the few and for the few via endless war.
As someone said some days ago - America, inparticular the CIA, plots and plans coups for years, decades even, and has a crack sometimes multiple times at the same country (see Syria history for example), and for you (in other emails) to implicitly deny that this is what has happened in Ukraine in the last 3 years is either incredibly ignorant or actively undermining of the truth (or "pro USA establishment" or whatever PC term you want to use).
Not saying it hasn't happened. Are you saying Russia, which clearly has an even greater interest in Ukraine, hasn't been up to the same thing far longer?
You can wax lyrically all day long on generalisations and say "they've done it here anhd there, so it's ok that we did it in Ukraine recently". I have a few choice words to that position. What the CIA and America has done in Ukraine is despicable towards the Ukrainian people, despotic in its specifics, abhorrent re any concept of "international diplomacy" and just generally entirely fucked up. On every level. Go feed your empire apologies to your work mates.
Ukraine's "revolution" was anything but. I could believe some folks genuinely got caught up in the coup, thinking it really was a revolution - that of course does not change the fact it was an American lead, CIA conducted, "most blatant and public coup in history" as EU officials and others around the world have repeatedly named this black kettle.
A coup is just a revolution you don't like or that failed.
You are full of it today..
I'm sure the US had some hand in it.
Since when is it appropriate to conflate a foreign state sponsored coup, with an internal grass roots (or 'genuine') revolution? Oh that's right, when you're compromised by employment and benefits from the USA government with which you are closely associated.
Did the US create all the conditions that led to it or even a majority? Doubt it. Too expensive and too unlikely to succeed.
Easy to say in hindsight. That's also called post facto justification - and you know where you can stick that. Up until Lybia, the CIA's coups were quite "successful" I'm sure they would say.
Your blunt refusal to acknowledge the facts leaves you without credibility. Which is a good thing - the ignorance of North Americans is an excellent thing for others in the world to witness, especially those compromised by their employment and golden cage lives.
Meaningless to anyone who hasn't already swallowed the Russian perspective hook line and sinker.
Right back atcha.
But the Russians seem to want the US to be run by a Putinesque strong man, too.
Let's see if that's actually how Americans, as in voting citizens of North America, actually vote in November.
One who thinks trade is a weapon to deployed only when it suits one's own interests.
This is a concept of empire. The USA empire has and continues to "deploy" trade as a weapon. Standard fare in fact.
Your words are ignorant. And simplistic. And bombastic.
And accurate.
The USSR had ideological empire building built in. Russia does not (not with Putin at the helm anyway). American think is "everything is a weapon to be deployed", and Americans (humans generally, but Americans and yourself in particular in this instance) typically project their belief systems upon others, and upon other nations. That's bombastic. It's also simplistic - generalizing your own nation's implied intentions as manifested over decades of actions in support, upon others. To not realise that Russia the nation is not USSR the empire, and that is ignorant. So to conclude, I'd say my words are accurate.
You seem to think Hillary has her finger on the nuclear button, but
so you seem to agree
Actually I don't have a position on whether she does or not. I was just accepting as a given your earlier post about Hillary believing in some kind of "first strike policy" toward Russia.
Oh that's right, she does! I'd forgotten that - I didn't even state that, but thanks. Why you would retract your position I have no idea, but hey, whatever floats your boat, Mr Moral Relativist.
the fact of the matter is Trump does too.
"Trump does too" was not ambiguous - but I accept your retraction of your position that "Hillary does not necessarily have her finger on the war button". Feel free to make more stupid retractions.. Lybia certainly demonstrates Hillary Clinton's evil "street creds". And Hillary's statements around Ukraine and Syria clearly imply otherwise. And Hillary's first strike against Russia policy bluntly tells otherwise. Hillary's record is abysmal, shocking, despotic and altogether very sad from a human perspective. It is an example of how far USA has fallen. Hillary laughs and expresses flippancy over the murder of foreign nation state leaders for example. What better example to the common man of "evil incarnate" can there be? Unfortunately for the world, Hillary Clinton is a very evil woman. How can USA be seen, in the example of Hillary Clinton, as anything other than a despotic, evil, war mongering empire gone rogue ? Seriously?
As has been said before, Trump is possibly (hopefully) more like flipping a coin. Whereas for war, Hillary is a certainty.
War is a certainty for both candidates.
Yes yes, that's your CIA perspective. We got it. The whole damn world gets it. This endless push for endless war, has to stop.
Hillary is the only one with the experience and, frankly, the rationality to be able to prevent escalation to an all out direct war that could result in a nuclear exchange.
The CIA and their shills are very strange humans. They speak publicly in total denial of reality, continue to assume absolute supremacy and power, and generally fuck up any nation that gets in America's way financially, militarily, or simply wants a piece of their own pie (their own natural resources). But Sean, by all means, continue to spout your lunacy.
Trump is a narcissist who doesn't understand the first thing about international politics.
May be so, but he has said repeatedly "we should probably fight ISIL together with Russia" and "it might be good if we could be friends with Russia, at least diplomatically". How very "un"diplomatic of you Sean :)
2016-09-27 4:35 GMT+03:00 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>:
You can wax lyrically all day long on generalisations and say "they've done it here and there, so it's ok that we did it in Ukraine recently". *+100!*
I have a few choice words to that position.
What the CIA and America has done in Ukraine is despicable towards the Ukrainian people, despotic in its specifics, abhorrent re any concept of "international diplomacy" and just generally entirely fucked up. On every level.
Go feed your empire apologies to your work mates.
*+100!* ___ P.S
But Sean, by all means, continue to spout your lunacy.
A HAHHAHA :P
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 18:35 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:09:07PM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 17:16 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
This is the PC term for "greed is good" which America backs up with "bend over or be bombed or have your country coup overthrown".
The mercantilists do Orwellianly name their trade restriction agreements "free trade agreements", I'll give you that. But what I mean is ACTUAL TRADE, which requires no special agreement. Just stop telling your people who they're allowed to trade with and stealing from them every time they engage in a transaction.
But yes, the US does pretend to be pro-free-trade when it is anything but. But Trump is promising to take that to a whole new level. If you thought the US used trade as a weapon before, what do you think Trump will do?
We can only hope: amp up trade protectionism, and rebuild or "vertically integrate" America again - bring back manufacturing and domestic agriculture and the consequent jobs and longer term - genuine - prosperity, rather than prosperity by the few, of the few and for the few via endless war.
Ok, so you do not understand the first thing about economics. That explains your Trump support.
As someone said some days ago - America, inparticular the CIA, plots and plans coups for years, decades even, and has a crack sometimes multiple times at the same country (see Syria history for example), and for you (in other emails) to implicitly deny that this is what has happened in Ukraine in the last 3 years is either incredibly ignorant or actively undermining of the truth (or "pro USA establishment" or whatever PC term you want to use).
Not saying it hasn't happened. Are you saying Russia, which clearly has an even greater interest in Ukraine, hasn't been up to the same thing far longer?
You can wax lyrically all day long on generalisations and say "they've done it here anhd there, so it's ok that we did it in Ukraine recently".
I have a few choice words to that position.
What the CIA and America has done in Ukraine is despicable towards the Ukrainian people, despotic in its specifics, abhorrent re any concept of "international diplomacy" and just generally entirely fucked up. On every level.
I think you mean toward the Russians who have colonized Ukraine.
Go feed your empire apologies to your work mates.
Ukraine's "revolution" was anything but. I could believe some folks genuinely got caught up in the coup, thinking it really was a revolution - that of course does not change the fact it was an American lead, CIA conducted, "most blatant and public coup in history" as EU officials and others around the world have repeatedly named this black kettle.
A coup is just a revolution you don't like or that failed.
You are full of it today..
I'm sure the US had some hand in it.
Since when is it appropriate to conflate a foreign state sponsored coup, with an internal grass roots (or 'genuine') revolution?
Oh that's right, when you're compromised by employment and benefits from the USA government with which you are closely associated.
You should try learning some history. The American "revolution" was sponsored by the French. To the extent that it bankrupted the French government and became a major factor leading to the French Revolution. The rest of their funding came largely from outright theft.
Did the US create all the conditions that led to it or even a majority? Doubt it. Too expensive and too unlikely to succeed.
Easy to say in hindsight.
Yes, it's possible the CIA were just stupid, but possibility is not actuality.
That's also called post facto justification - and you know where you can stick that.
Justifying what, exactly? I didn't make the decision, nor am I trying to excuse the US. You are the one attempting to excuse the Russians' generations of deplorable behavior toward the ACTUAL Ukranians.
Up until Lybia, the CIA's coups were quite "successful" I'm sure they would say.
Actually the US's track record there is quite abysmal. But as we've already established you can't be bothered to learn history.
Your blunt refusal to acknowledge the facts leaves you without credibility. Which is a good thing - the ignorance of North Americans is an excellent thing for others in the world to witness, especially those compromised by their employment and golden cage lives.
Meaningless to anyone who hasn't already swallowed the Russian perspective hook line and sinker.
Right back atcha.
LOL "I know what you are it what am I?"
But the Russians seem to want the US to be run by a Putinesque strong man, too.
Let's see if that's actually how Americans, as in voting citizens of North America, actually vote in November.
They won't.
One who thinks trade is a weapon to deployed only when it suits one's own interests.
This is a concept of empire. The USA empire has and continues to "deploy" trade as a weapon. Standard fare in fact.
Your words are ignorant. And simplistic. And bombastic.
And accurate.
The USSR had ideological empire building built in. Russia does not (not with Putin at the helm anyway).
Right. Putin is simply a Russian nationalist. Granted.
American think is "everything is a weapon to be deployed", and Americans (humans generally, but Americans and yourself in particular in this instance) typically project their belief systems upon others, and upon other nations.
That's bombastic.
It's also simplistic - generalizing your own nation's implied intentions as manifested over decades of actions in support, upon others.
To not realise that Russia the nation is not USSR the empire, and that is ignorant.
I never claimed that, but the history of the relationship with Ukraine largely happened under the USSR, so you cannot simply pretend the USSR didn't happen. The USSR is also the most recent period where Russia was a world power, a period many Russians look back on with rose colored glasses the same way many Americans look back on the Reagan era, the 1950s, and WWII.
So to conclude, I'd say my words are accurate.
I'm sure they accurately reflect the propaganda youre attempting to spew.
You seem to think Hillary has her finger on the nuclear button, but
so you seem to agree
Actually I don't have a position on whether she does or not. I was just accepting as a given your earlier post about Hillary believing in some kind of "first strike policy" toward Russia.
Oh that's right, she does! I'd forgotten that - I didn't even state that, but thanks. Why you would retract your position I have no idea, but hey, whatever floats your boat, Mr Moral Relativist.
You don't seen to understand the difference between accepting something for the sake of discussion and holding a position. But as we've established your worldview has only black and white, good and evil.
the fact of the matter is Trump does too.
"Trump does too" was not ambiguous - but I accept your retraction of your position that "Hillary does not necessarily have her finger on the war button". Feel free to make more stupid retractions..
Lybia certainly demonstrates Hillary Clinton's evil "street creds".
And Hillary's statements around Ukraine and Syria clearly imply otherwise.
And Hillary's first strike against Russia policy bluntly tells otherwise.
Hillary's record is abysmal, shocking, despotic and altogether very sad from a human perspective. It is an example of how far USA has fallen.
Hillary laughs and expresses flippancy over the murder of foreign nation state leaders for example. What better example to the common man of "evil incarnate" can there be?
Unfortunately for the world, Hillary Clinton is a very evil woman.
And Trump is a moronic narcissist and even more authoritarian than Hillary. We're you supporting someone other than one of the two you'd have some credibility. Personally I will be voting for Johnso, if I vote at all.
How can USA be seen, in the example of Hillary Clinton, as anything other than a despotic, evil, war mongering empire gone rogue ?
The US has not ever NOT been these things. Not in my lifetime, anyway. Russia isn't now but only because they lack the capability. But Russia has a far longer history of empire than the US does. Which you'd know if you'd bothered to learn any history
Seriously?
As has been said before, Trump is possibly (hopefully) more like flipping a coin. Whereas for war, Hillary is a certainty.
War is a certainty for both candidates.
Yes yes, that's your CIA perspective.
We got it.
The whole damn world gets it.
This endless push for endless war, has to stop.
I agree that it has to stop. Trump won't stop it. Hell just steer it like a drunken truck driver.
Hillary is the only one with the experience and, frankly, the rationality to be able to prevent escalation to an all out direct war that could result in a nuclear exchange.
The CIA and their shills are very strange humans. They speak publicly in total denial of reality, continue to assume absolute supremacy and power, and generally fuck up any nation that gets in America's way financially, militarily, or simply wants a piece of their own pie (their own natural resources).
But Sean, by all means, continue to spout your lunacy.
Trump is a narcissist who doesn't understand the first thing about international politics.
May be so, but he has said repeatedly "we should probably fight ISIL together with Russia" and "it might be good if we could be friends with Russia, at least diplomatically".
How very "un"diplomatic of you Sean :)
I think the US should be more friendly toward Russia. but Russia isn't the only player out there. Iran is also important, as is Ukraine. Your idea of diplomacy is very simplistic.
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:07:51 +0000 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:
And Trump is a moronic narcissist and even more authoritarian than Hillary.
Source? Fact : trump is a second rate corporatist (unlike, say, the criminals at google's top who are very first rate). Another fact : the clinton cunt is a very high ranking 'professional' politician. There does seem to be some differences. Another fact : the 'democratic' system always 'chooses' the 'best' candidate. 'Best' here of course means best for the establishment's interests. And who is apparently the 'favorite' candidate? Why, the clinton cunt. If in a few months, that trump clown becomes president feel free to rub in my face that I was wrong.
participants (6)
-
grarpamp -
juan -
Sean Lynch -
xorcist＠sigaint.org -
Zenaan Harkness -
Александр